Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Tenants (Cash Incentives)

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to investigate the effect of the cash incentive schemes available to enable tenants to move from public sector to private sector housing on local house prices and house availability for local people in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I shall certainly watch these schemes with great interest, and I expect the results to be beneficial.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is something offensive and unfair about the fact that Welsh taxpayers' money might go by way of grants to people from cities such as London to buy houses in Wales that local people cannot afford? Thousands of local people are trying to find rented accommodation or, if they can, to buy. Does not that need an initiative by the Welsh Office to ensure that equivalent funds are available for people in Wales to get a home, which so many of them are unable to do at present?

Mr. Jones: No, I think that the transferable discount scheme represents good value for money. It is certainly

good value compared with new build, for instance. It facilitates two important objectives: allowing families to own a home of their own, while freeing other accommodation for housing need. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are already making great efforts, through Housing for Wales and housing associations as well as local authorities, to create further housing throughout Wales, particularly in rural areas.

Welsh Wine

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectolitres of Welsh wine have been produced in each of the last three years and from how many vineyards.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): One hundred and thirty one hectolitres were produced from 10 vineyards in Wales in 1989; 202 from 13 vineyards in 1990; and 147 hectolitres from 16 vineyards in 1991.

Mr. Steen: As I know the Secretary of State enjoys the odd glass of Welsh wine, whether at home or in his office, will the Minister explain why the Government seem to discriminate against Welsh wine and Scotch whisky in their taxation regime? A bottle of English or Welsh wine is subject to 98p tax, whereas a bottle of French wine is taxed at only 2·2p. Is the Minister aware that Rovral, a poison not allowed to be used on Welsh vines because of its content, is allowed to be used in France and that we import French wine without asking questions? Finally, why do not the EC rules and regulations allow us to use the word "Welsh" on the labels of wine made in Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be well aware that taxation matters, to do with either whisky or wine, are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that we have some excellent Welsh wines. I gather that none of them is a quality wine because we do not have enough sweet reserve—and looking at the faces opposite me, I am not surprised.

Quasi-autonomous Organisations

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those individuals who hold two or more positions on quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I shall arrange for the list of 47 names, out of the total of over 1,200 public appointments, to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Llwyd: We are assured by the Secretary of State that politics have no part in the appointment of people to quangos in Wales—and that goes presumably for the new chairman of the Gwynedd area heatlth authority, the former Tory party chairman in the Caernarfon constituency, and for the late lamented Mr. Grist and others. I could name several hundred of them in Wales. Given this insidious system, is it not time that the Secretary of State introduced an element of positive discrimination so as to introduce some form of legitimacy into this terrible system in Wales?

Mr. Skinner: Why did Dafydd Thomas go to the House of Lords then?

Mr. Hunt: That famous saying—the Lords is not a quango—will presumably go into the Official Report. I am not too sure whether it was in order.
Of course appointments are made on merit. Instead of sniping from the sidelines, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman suggested names of individuals whom he thinks are suitable for public office. I shall, of course, consider them in the usual way.

Mr. Richards: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether some individuals are appointed to two or more non-departmental bodies purely because that generates cohesion between various bodies? Does that not lead to a greater understanding between non-governmental bodies and ultimately to better government in Wales?

Mr. Kinnock: It takes two to quango.

Mr. Hunt: I hope that that is not in the Official Report.
The House has decided previously that an individual may sit on more than one of those bodies in Wales. It has decided, for example, that the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales should sit also on the board of the Welsh Development Agency. My hon. Friend rightly reminds the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of those important facts.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that, whenever possible, political patronage is best avoided? If so, what is his policy on advertising for people wishing to be appointed to public bodies? Will he start to advertise, to draw on the widest possible selection?

Mr. Hunt: Yes. We have advertised and, as I told the Select Committee, we are placing composite advertisements in Welsh newspapers asking people to come forward to be considered for public office. I take this opportunity to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is one of the Members of Parliament who submit the names of suitable individuals. I have been able to respond by appointing them to public office.

Mr. Dickens: May I ask my right hon. Friend, on behalf of all the wonderful ladies of Wales, to state what action he or his Department is taking to ensure that more Welsh ladies serve on such bodies?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. Of the appointments that we make to public bodies in Wales, 18 per cent. are women. I have clearly said that I would like the target to be 30 per cent., and I hope to achieve that by 1996.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why does the right hon. Gentleman appoint persons from the Wirral to quangos in Wales? Will he concentrate on being the Secretary of State for Wales rather than the Secretary of State for the Wirral? Why does he appoint people to quangos in Wales when at the same time he plans to take away assisted area status from Deeside and to prevent the expansion of Deeside industrial park, which is adjacent to the Wirral?

Mr. Hunt: The assisted area review is another matter. As to appointments, I understand that in preparation for Labour winning the general election, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) had a little list of people who would be suitable for appointment. If they will share that little list with me, it might help—I might well be able to appoint some of those persons to public office. By keeping that list quiet, the hon. Gentleman does himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends no good at all.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State really understand the contempt and derision that he is bringing on the Welsh Office by the way in which he exercises his patronage over public appointments, especially as neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his party has a mandate from the people of Wales? Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman appoints Conservative party hacks. Is it not clear that quangos produce neither more effective nor more efficient administrations than democratic structures? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is time that all such matters were made subject to proper democratic control and scrutiny through a Welsh assembly?

Mr. Hunt: Democratic accountability lies in this Chamber, and it is evidenced by the fact that the hon. Gentleman raised those questions with me—[Interruption.] I say to the Opposition Back Benchers who shouted at me that Labour has not denied the existence of that little list. I should like to see it, so that I can consider appointing people from Wales, irrespective of their party affiliation—which I always endeavour to do.

Following is the information:

List of individuals holding two or more appointments on public bodies in Wales.


J. D. Allen CBE
1. Chair, Housing for Wales.



2. Deputy Chair, Land Authority for Wales.


Dr. H. R. Bichan
1. Chair, Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board.



2. Member, Court of Governors, UC North Wales.


Dr. W. B. Clee
1. Member, Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse.



2. Member, Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs.






A. G. Cox
1. Member, Cardiff Bay development corporation.



2. Member, Higher Education Funding Council.


Prof. G. C. Crompton
1. Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.



2. Member, Public Health Laboratory Service Board.


R. Cuthbertson
1. Member, Health Promotion Authority for Wales.



2. Member, Gwynedd district health authority.


E. Glyn Davies
1. Chair, Development Board for Rural Wales. As Chair of DBRW Mr. Davies also sits on the Welsh Development Agency (ex officio member).



2. Member, Wales tourist board.


T. G. R. Davies
1. Chair, Wales Youth Agency.



2. Member, Sports Council for Wales.


Prof. B. C. Dimond
1. Member, Mid Glamorgan family health services authority.



2. Member, Mental Health Act Commission.


Prof. Sir H. Duthie
1. Member, South Glamorgan DHA.



2. Member, Committee for the Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research.


R. Ellis
1. Member, Welsh Health Common Services Authority.



2. Member, Housing for Wales.


A. Evans OBE
1. Chair, Hill Farming Advisory Committee for Wales.



2. Member, Food From Britain Council


R. G. Gee
1. Member, Development Board for Rural Wales.



2. Member, Court of Governors, St. Davids UC Lampeter.


E. M. W. Griffith CBE
1. Chair, Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS Trust.



2. Chair, Countryside Council for Wales.



3. Member, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.


R. M. Howells
1. Member, Agriculture Advisory Panel for Wales.



2. Member, Hill Farming Advisory Committee for Wales.


B. H. R. Hudson-Davies
1. Member, Cardiff Bay development corporation.



2. Member, Powys DHA.


G. D. Inkin OBE
1. Chair, Cardiff Bay development corporation.



2. Chair, Land Authority for Wales.


G. L. Jones
1. Chair, West Glamorgan FHSA.



2. Member, Land Authority for Wales.





Dr. M. Gwyn Jones
1. Chair, Welsh Development Agency.



2. BBC National Governor for Wales. (sits on S4C Authority)



3. Member, Court of Governors UC Swansea.


T. Jones
1. Member, Agriculture Advisory Panel for Wales.



2. Coleg Normal Board of Governors.


Dr. M. R. Keen
1. Member, Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse.



2. Member, Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs.


R. W. S. Knight
1. Member, Land Authority for Wales.



2. Member, Board of Governors Cardiff Institute of Higher Education.


R. K. Lacey
1. Member, Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales.



2. Member, Urban Investment Grant Appraisal Panel.


Councillor P. J. Law
1. Member, Welsh Language Board.



2. Member, Gwent FHSA.


Mrs. C. E. Lewis
1. Member, Development Board for Rural Wales.



2. Member, Health Promotion Authority for Wales.


I. R. Lloyd
1. Member, South Glamorgan FHSA.



2. Member, Swansea Institute of Higher Education Board of Governors.


Mrs. F. M. Lynch-Llewellyn
1. Member, Ancient Monuments Board for Wales.



2. Member, Snowdonia National Park Committee.


D. G. Margetts
1. Member, Powys DHA.



2. Member, Further Education Funding Council for Wales.


J. Morgan
1. Member, Development Board for Rural Wales.



2. Member, Court of National Library of Wales.


I. Phillips
1. Member South Glamorgan FHSA.



2. Member, Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education.


R. Pratt
1. Member, Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Committee.



2. Member, Agriculture Advisory Panel for Wales.


E. Rae, OBE
1. Member, Development Board for Rural Wales.



2. Member, Welsh Language Board.


R. E. M. Rees, CBE
1. Chair, Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales.



2. Member, Meat and Livestock Commission.


R. P. V. Rees
1. Member, Land Authority for Wales.



2. Member, Welsh Development Agency.



3. Member, Board of Governors, University of Glamorgan.


Prof. A. Richens
1. Member, Gwent FHSA



2. Member, Standing Medical Advisory Committee.


Dr. Brynley Roberts
1. Member, Library and Information Services Council.







2. Member, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.


Prof. N. R. E. Robertson
1. Member, South Glamorgan DHA.



2. Member, Welsh Scheme for the Development of Health and Social Research.


Mrs. P. Ryan
1. Member, Curriculum Council for Wales.



2. Member, Further Education Funding Council for Wales.


Prof. P. S. J. Spencer
1. Member, Board of Governmors, Gwent College of Higher Education.



2. Member, Medicines Commission.



3. Member, Standing Pharmaceutical Committee for England and Wales.



4. Member, Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education.


G. Stanley Jones
1. Member, Court of Governors of UC Aberystwyth.



2. Chair—appointed as member, elected by membership—Welsh College of Music and Drama.


Prof. E. Sunderland
1. Member, Welsh Language Board.



2. Member, Court of National Museum of Wales.


Dr. D. J. Temple
1. Member, Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse.



2. Member, Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs.


B. K. Thomas
1. Member, Cardiff Bay development corporation.



2. Member, Countryside Council Wales.


M. Wallace OBE
1. Chair, Further Education Funding Council.



2. Member, Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board.


Sir F. Donald Walters
1. Chair, Llandough Hospital NHS Trust.



2. Dep Chair, Welsh Development Agency.



3. Member, Development Board for Rural Wales.


D. S. Williams
1. Member, West Glamorgan FHSA.



2. Professional Member, Rent Assessment Panel for Wales.


Prof. P. Williams
1. Chair, Housing Management Advisory Panel for Wales.



2. Member, Housing for Wales.

Coal Mining

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of coal mining in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: The outcome of the Government's review of the coal industry will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the new year.

Mrs. Gorman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that recently I was fortunate enough to visit north Wales, where I met a number of people who lived in the vicinity of the Point of Ayr coal pit, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). They strongly made the case for their pit to be taken over by a consortium of local miners and other local people. They feel that it could well be one of the most productive pits in the area.
As my right hon. Friend will know, a large number of north Wales pits are privately owned and run, and I believe that 90 pits in the Principality overall fall into that class. The local people feel strongly that they could make a very good go of keeping their pit open, if only they were given the opportunity. Will my right hon. Friend consider putting that point to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the role of the private sector in Welsh coal mining. We have more than 90 licensed mines—two thirds of the United Kingdom total—which employ about 1,300 people in Wales. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the private deep-mined sector.
I regard the Point of Ayr pit as an extremely good one; I have visited it and have been underground. The future is, of course, a matter for British Coal, as it has always been, but I very much hope that British Coal will consider any reasonble offer from the private sector.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the miners of the Point of Ayr colliery, whom I visited last Friday and who last week—yet again—broke all production target records, proving how profitable and viable the pit can be? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me—not from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who represents a seat in Essex—that the one thing that the miners, their families and their north Wales community do not want is privatisation? They wish to remain part of British Coal, productively and viably, and to make a success of their livelihoods and their future.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should be careful about trying to introduce party political division to this subject. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House would like Welsh coal mining to develop, in the private sector.
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Point of Ayr work force. Hon. Members who are familiar with the coal mining industry will know how difficult it is to move from the longwall mining technique to continuous mining, but the Point of Ayr miners have achieved that with remarkable success. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for securing the pit's future. All those aspects should be considered—but, as I said at the outset, the question of individual pits must be a matter for British Coal.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As my right hon. Friend and you, Madam Speaker, will know, I was born in Wales, and I know all about the past—if not, perhaps, the future—of the coal mining industry in that country. Will my right


hon. Friend remind the House how many pits were closed during the 1960s and 1970s under Labour Administrations?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right: 331 pits were closed under Labour Governments. That is an enormous total. Of course, pits have closed under all Governments; the difficulty that now faces British Coal is that it produces more coal than it can sell. All those points will be carefully considered in the energy review that is being supervised by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State has made what strikes some of us as a disturbing statement. He said that, if British Coal were not prepared to transfer its licences to another operator, that was a decision entirely for British Coal. Will the right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade make it clear that, if British Coal refuses to hold tenders, the licences will be taken away from it and will be issued by the Government in the future?

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify exactly what I said. I said—as all coal Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box—that decisions on individual pits must be a matter for British Coal. Returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay about whether there should be a viable private sector place for the Point of Ayr colliery—or, indeed, for Betws—I very much hope that British Coal will give careful consideration to any such proposal. If I become aware of circumstances in which British Coal is not prepared to give proper scrutiny to a private sector bid, I trust that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—and others on both sides of the House—will make me aware of them.

Male Unemployment

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in Wales at the latest available date.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: As at October 1992, the seasonally adjusted male unemployment figure in Wales was 103,000.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the shattering blow suffered by Newport over the weekend with the announcement of the proposed closure of the GEC-Marconi factory and the loss of 400 jobs, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would at least have the decency to answer my question. Does the Minister appreciate that this is essentially a high-tech factory and that no equivalent work is available locally? Will the Secretary of State, with his colleagues, the Secretary of State for Defence and the President of the Board of Trade, intervene to prevent the closure from taking place?

Mr. Jones: It would be unrealistic not to accept that there have been unwelcome announcements such as the news from GEC-Marconi. I note, however, that the hon. Gentleman does nothing to acknowledge the excellent news about the 200 maintained and the 280 new jobs at the two INMOS factories in Newport—one of which I believe is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—or the other recent announcements of support for 300 new jobs at Ford of Treforest and 200-plus new jobs at Robertson of Treforest or the Australian investment at Amcor of Mold

leading to the creation of 150 new jobs there. There is certainly a positive side to the coin, and the hon. Gentleman should take that into account.

Mr. Kinnock: May I say, without any discourtesy to the Minister, that the Opposition find it peculiar that the Secretary of State is not answering questions on employment in Wales? May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if pressures continue on the Royal Ordnance factory in Galscoed, there will be more job losses at the ROF, and that that will be poor reward for half a century of loyal, highly skilled service to the defence of the nation and in the production of excellent products? Will the Minister ensure that, at all levels in the Government, full account is taken of the change in strategic needs so as to ensure that we manage to continue to use to the maximum the skills and commitment of the people at Galscoed?

Mr. Jones: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman intended no discourtesy, and there is no discourtesy in my suggestion in return that the doom and gloom that the right hon. Gentleman always preached as a Leader of the Opposition who lost two general elections would have done nothing to reduce unemployment in Wales. If he were at the Dispatch Box now, he would be accepting the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, which would mean another 70,000 unemployed in Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the large loss of male full-time employment, the valley communities' per capita share of gross domestic product is now barely 70 per cent. of the national average? What significant additional funds will come from the Welsh Office or from the funds agreed at Edinburgh to create some degree of convergence and cohesion between the economies of the valley communities and that of the nation as a whole? The principles of cohesion and convergence should surely apply within the United Kingdom as within Europe.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman again ignores the recent announcement that my right hon. Friend was able to make to the effect that, in the coming financial year, here will be a total of £243 million, through the Welsh Development Agency and regional selective assistance, to help industry and redevelopment, especially in the valleys of south Wales. The hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore the fact that the latest figures show that average earnings in Wales are increasing faster than the United Kingdom average and that our unemployment rate is now lower than that for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Morgan: There is great concern in the Newport area following the announcement about GEC-Marconi and there are fears, too, that, on top of the job losses, Newport will lose its assisted area status when the assisted area review is completed. The same applies to Deeside and to the Cardiff travel-to-work area, where, in the past few weeks, there have been 200 redundancies at Wiggins Teape and 260 further redundancies at Powell Duffryn Standard and at the British Rail wagon works in Cathays. The curious thing about those job losses is that none of them relates to the recession in trade: they all relate to the Government's incompetence in handling transport and defence matters. Will the hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that all those job losses will be fully taken into account before any areas in Wales are downgraded for assisted area purposes?

Mr. Jones: All pertinent matters will be taken fully into account by my right hon. Friends and by the President of the Board of Trade as he conducts his review of assisted area status. Already, we should be able to point to the successes that the present policy is achieving. The hon. Gentleman would probably be interested to know that, in the first three quarters of this year alone, regional selective assistance succeeded in attracting and maintaining almost 8,000 jobs in Wales.

Cereals Scheme

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to the statistical basis for his decision to make Wales a separate single region for the cereals scheme; and if he will deposit the relevant detailed statistical information in the Library.

Mr. David Hunt: The statistical basis is the cereal production survey which was conducted over the 1986 to 1990 harvest years. The data shown are in the United Kingdom regionalisation plan, a copy of which has already been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the statistical data to which he referred are inadequate to separate regions within Wales that have very different cereal outputs? Will he please explain why, if that is the only reason, he has treated Wales as a single region, whereas Scotland has been treated as two regions, with less-favoured areas treated differently? Will my right hon. Friend he let us know what steps he proposes to take to put right that extraordinary state of affairs next year?

Mr. Kinnock: Answer.

Mr. Hunt: I have to say to my hon. Friend—I need no help from the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—that the data are insufficient. I recognise that. What I have said to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Friends who have contacted me on behalf of their constituents, and indeed to the leaders of the National Farmers Union, is that we have to find a better statistical basis. We are now conducting a survey to find ways in which we can have more reliable data on which to base our decisions for the second and subsequent years, because this decision is for only the first year.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about farmers in my constituency who are farming very near the English border and who are obtaining substantially less than their colleagues a few miles away in relation to cereal production. If at all possible, will the right hon. Gentleman try to secure a more level playing field on the issue next year so that cereal producers in Montgomeryshire, for example, are not placed at a disadvantage compared with colleagues in Shropshire, particularly when some farms actually cross the English-Welsh border?

Mr. Hunt: Those cross-border comparisons work both ways, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware. I was advised that I did not have sufficient statistical data on which to base a decision to look forward on a county basis or on a less-favoured area/non-LFA basis, and I am doing everything possible to ensure that I have the right statistical information on which I can base a decision for the second and subsequent years.

Milan (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the outcome of the Minister of State's visit to Milan; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My visit to Milan was made in connection with the second highly successful Welsh Office trade mission to Lombardy. It gave me the opportunity to reinforce contacts and to open formally, on behalf of Control Techniques plc of Newtown, Powys, the new factory of its Italian subsidiary, Soprel.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Was there any positive financial outcome to his visit to Milan? If so, is he considering making similar visits to Milan and, indeed, to many other parts of the world which in the past have proved so fruitful in bringing jobs to Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that there was a very positive outcome in that the companies on the export mission returned with more than £5 million worth of orders. As that and other export missions have been so successful and are clearly of great benefit to Wales, my right hon. Friend and I are considering how we might expand the programme.

Mr. Flynn: Did the Minister discuss with the Italians their investment in Welsh industry, especially to create jobs in the Agrate area? Unfortunately, those Welsh jobs will now become Italian jobs. From 1993 the INMOS transputer graphite chip will be produced in France and Italy only. When shall we get investment in Welsh technology, particularly for the Newport Wafer Fab Company, on the same scale as that invested by the French and Italian Governments in their industries? The truth is that in the future there will be 200 jobs in INMOS when once there were 850. We have also lost 500 jobs from Marconi. How can we be anything but gloomy about that situation?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the development at INMOS whereby I understand that additional investment from a Hong Kong-based company will lead to additional jobs. Of course, investment is international these days. I spoke to representatives of the distinguished Italian company, Cogefar Impresit, the largest building contractor in Italy and a subsidiary in Fiat, which has invested extensively in Cardiff and is interested in further investment in south Wales.

Valleys Initiative

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of the valleys initiative programme.

Mr. David Hunt: I will make an announcement in due course.

Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State will be aware from figures that he has given to me that one in three male adults covered by the valleys initiative programme are now out of work; they are either on the official unemployment register or economically inactive. That unemployment rate is much higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, especially for those in the economically inactive category. When the


right hon. Gentleman makes his announcement, what specific proposals will be included to address the problems faced by village communities up the valleys—communities which are dying? I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about those communities and I know of his interest in them. They are industrial villages and they need to become areas of high technology, high quality and high skills. They need a distinct strategy and investment from the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency to achieve that.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman and several of his hon. Friends have put proposals to me and I am now considering how best to develop the initiative. I hope that implicit in everything that is said is a recognition of the fact that the programme for the valleys was a good initiative taken by my predecessor, Peter Walker, now Lord Walker, which has achieved positive results. There is, of course, much more still to do.

Mr. Richards: Has my right hon. Friend estimated what the level of unemployment in the valleys would have been, had it not been for the valleys initiative and had unemployment in Wales increased according to the national average?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Since the programme started, unemployment in the valleys has gone down from 34,000 to under 33,000. Had the unemployment rate in the valleys gone up in accordance with the United Kingdom average, nearly 10,000 more people would be unemployed in the valleys. I hope that the House recognises the importance and value of the valleys initiative.

Mr. Murphy: The Secretary of State will realise that there are other problems apart from unemployment in the valleys. Is it not time that we had a housing initiative in our valleys to allow district councils to build homes once again, or a schools initiative concentrating on books and equipment instead of the silly league tables that were published last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the only way in which the valleys initiative can succeed is when he works with and not against our local valley councils? We call on him to set up a valleys standing conference of the valley local authorities which can act as the engine for the proper revitalisation of our valley communities.

Mr. Hunt: I gain great strength from the fact that the Welsh Office and the local authorities work in close partnership in the valleys area. One of the first meetings that I had when I was visiting every valley was with the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman must not downplay the achievements that the Welsh Office and the local authorities have had in the valleys area. There is, of course, more to be done, but the largest land clearance programme anywhere in Europe is currently being undertaken in the valleys. A great many things are taking place, including the remarkably successful experiment on community revival strategies. Five communities were given £500,000 each by the Welsh Office towards local community projects. I am now reviewing the results of all those strategies with a view to taking the programme for the valleys forward when it comes to a close at the end of March. I am determined to make sure that we learn all the lessons that must be learnt from the past and present programmes.

Quasi-autonomous Non-governmental Organisations

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish the party political affiliations of those he appoints to public bodies and quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: None. This information is not held centrally.

Mr. Jones: Presumably the Minister of State is reluctant to tell the House about the party political affiliation of appointees because recent analysis showed that 65 per cent. of appointees were Conservatives or had leanings towards the Conservative cause. The invitation of the Secretary of State for Wales for the production of lists is irrelevant, because a Conservative Secretary of State is bound to appoint more Conservatives than anyone else, as the record shows. The Minister must surely be aware that we are talking not about the appointment of the odd Liberal, Labour or Plaid sympathiser but about a system that is wrong. It is a grotesque distortion of the democratic process and the best argument for a Welsh Parliament that I have ever heard.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman really does astonish me. We do not ask prospective appointees, either on our nomination lists or in conversation, what their policies are. If they reveal on their nomination forms that they are active in politics as part of their qualification to serve the public, that is a matter for them, but we have no record of appointees' political affiliations. The hon. Gentleman does no service to his own supporters or to those of Opposition or Conservative Members by seeming to imply that activity in a political organisation somehow disbars a person from office. We have heard about the Labour party's "little list". I wonder whether Plaid Cymru has a little list, or whether the hon. Gentleman is able to make any recommendations, because I do not recall hearing from him about anyone he wished or thought suitable to be nominated for office.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend entirely resist the McCarthyite sentiments being shouted from the Opposition Benches? Will he note that the chairman of Housing for Wales was asked recently by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs whether he had ever been a member of the Conservative party and said that he had first been appointed to public office 18 years ago by a Labour Government? Will he further note that there will be incredulity in Wales at the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), discounting so many public servants as party hacks, especially the noble Lord Brooks who holds two such appointments as well as being a former leader of the Labour group on South Glamorgan county council?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I hope that the country as well as the House heard what my hon. Friend said. The Labour party's obsession with the political affiliations of public appointees takes us back to the time when it regularly appointed failed Labour candidates to high office in Wales; quangos were very much its preserve. The obsession of the hon. Member for Caerphilly with quangos and appointments shows that Labour is already thinking in terms of its little list, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called it.

Mr. Kinnock: May I remind the Minister of State that it was Gilbert and Sullivan who had a little list and not Kinnock and Jones? Quango appointments of people with associations—I put it no stronger—with the Conservative cause in Wales have reached almost one-party state level. The extent of the Minister's embarrassment is evidenced by the length of his completely unconvincing answers on the subject.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not denied the existence of the list. He has thrown it away with a reference to Gilbert and Sullivan, but he has not denied its existence and there are some guilty faces on the Labour Front Bench. Party affiliation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure that there are many people whom the Labour party considers to be Conservative political hacks, as it calls them, but who in fact are not, and perhaps many people who I think may belong to the Labour party but who do not.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Market Testing

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet representatives of the civil service unions to discuss the impact of the Government's market-testing programme in the civil service.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): My ministerial colleagues and I have meetings with the civil service unions from time to time to discuss the range of Government policies. Meetings on market testing take place as the need for them arises.

Mr. McAllion: When contracting out has been set up by civil service departments and agencies, will the Minister instruct them to apply the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to those transfers, thereby avoiding the legal mess in which Ealing council now finds itself because it failed to apply TUPE? Will he confirm that in applying TUPE to the contracting out of its photocopying services, the Central Office of Information has set a firm precedent which the rest of the civil service will follow?

Mr. Waldegrave: The TUPE regulations have of course applied since 1981—there is no question about that—and if they have been wrongly applied in any individual case it does not change the overall position, which is that application of the regulations has allowed a great deal of contracting out in the central Government and local government sectors.

Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that money saved as a result of market testing can and will be reinvested in our public services?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are market testing about £1·5 billion of central Government services. If the savings were to run at the rate of about 25 per cent., which we have achieved in the much smaller programme so far, we should achieve about £300 million of savings a year to plough back into services.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that the Government decided to sell to Robert Maxwell the Professional and

Executive Register, which provides services for people with professional qualifications? The company went bust and some of the people who worked for it set up by themselves, but the Department is now setting up in competition with the people whose organisation it privatised. Is that a proper way in which to conduct a public service?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall inquire into the particular case, but the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps ill advised to press connections between our party and Mr. Robert Maxwell.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister now attempt to give a straight answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)? It might enhance what little credibility he has left as Minister for open government. If the situation is as clear as he suggests in relation to the application of TUPE, can he explain why the Foreign Office has suspended programmes for market testing until further clarification is given, the Welsh Office has told its health authorities to cease contracting out while it seeks legal advice and the Health and Safety Executive has put its programme on hold because it has received contradictory legal advice? Will the Minister give a straight answer which his civil service Departments will understand and stop the prejudice that he exhibits to the effect that private is good and public must, by default, be bad?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no need for the hon. Lady to be quite so offensive. I have tried to explain the issue to her several times and I am sorry if I failed. It is not very difficult. Each individual case must be judged against the 1981 regulations. Nothing has changed because of the Bill currently before Parliament. Obviously, it could not have done, as the hon. Lady is claiming that cases have got into difficulty under the 1981 legislation.

Institution of Civil Engineers

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about science policy from the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have received a final total of about 800 responses to the consultation process for the White Paper on science and technology. Copies of the responses from organisations, including the excellent contribution from the Institution of Civil Engineers, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as possible.

Mr. Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the institution emphasised the need for the adequate teaching of science and mathematics in schools? Does he agree that the national curriculum will make that far more feasible?

Mr. Waldegrave: The submission made the point about the importance of technological and science education more broadly. My hon. Friend is right. In the medium to longer term, the national curriculum will greatly improve science and technology education. In the past five years, there has been a welcome increase again—a recovery—in the numbers reading technology and science courses at universities and polytechnics. That is welcome, too.

Mr. Miller: In considering the responses that he has received, has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster


read the interesting report from Lancaster university headed, "Future Relations between the Ministry of Defence and the Office of Science and Technology"? Does he agree with the conclusions reached in that report?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry to say that I have not read that paper, although I have a high regard for Lancaster university. I shall now read it and I write to the hon. Gentleman about the conclusions that it reaches. It will certainly be taken into account.

Charter Mark

Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend his charter mark scheme to the European Commission.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): None, but considerable interest in the charter was expressed at the recent European "Service for the Citizen" conference held in London under the United Kingdom presidency of the Community and at the meeting of directors-general for public administration in European Community states which took place at the same time in London.

Mr. Steen: As the public are increasingly affected by rules and regulations from the European Community should we not use the last few weeks of our presidency to press for the citizens charter to be extended to the Brussels bureaucracy? Will my hon. Friend don the mantle of St. George to do that important job?

Mr. Jackson: I hope that my hon. Friend has noted the conclusions of the Edinburgh summit which apply the citizens charter approach to the European Community. The basic principle of subsidiarity has been recognised, reaffirmed and expanded. There is a commitment to greater openness in the Council of Ministers. The Community is to have an ombudsman. Those are all the result of British efforts and British initiatives to try to do as my hon. Friend suggests.

Charter Proposals

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made under his charter proposals.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Excellent progress is being made. More than 90 per cent. of the initial 150 commitments in the programme of action in the 1991 citizens charter White Paper have been met or are in hand. More than 80 further policy commitments were set out in the citizens charter first report which was published on 25 November.

Mr. Jones: I welcome the initiative. I should be pleased if, in the spirit of Christmas, the Minister could extend the initiative to the homeless and the unemployed. May we have a charter for the homeless and the unemployed this Christmas?

Mr. Jackson: I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comment on the citizens charter. There is a charter for the Employment Service, and in my previous ministerial job I was responsible for it. The Employment Service is doing its best to apply charter principles to improve the quality of the service that it offers to unemployed people.

Service to the Citizen

Mrs. Browning: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what methods his Department has used to judge how the public sector is meeting its targets for improved service to the citizen.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The citizens charter commits all public service providers to setting specific levels of service and to measuring and publishing details of their performance against those standards. The way in which this is done will obviously vary from service to service.
My Department is responsible for driving the charter initiative forward across the whole public sector and for reporting, in publications such as the White Paper of 25 November, the details of performance against standards.

Mrs. Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that monitoring standards in public services and publishing the results is vital? Is the Prime Minister keeping a watching brief on progress?

Mr. Jackson: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is keeping a close eye on progress. He will host the third seminar on the citizens charter on Wednesday 17 February 1993. There have been several important developments covering the whole spectrum of public service reform since the Prime Minister's previous seminar in June this year. We have now published the first progress report on the citizens charter. My right hon. Friend and I consider it to be of the utmost importance that we regularly review progress in implementing the charter. The seminar will give us a further opportunity to do so at the highest level.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has had to the report on the citizens charter.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have had a very encouraging response to the citizens charter report.

Mr. Skinner: Instead of the Minister talking as his belly warms about things like charters, why does he not listen to the people who are really shouting out—the unemployed people who want a full employment charter and the people who do not have roofs over their heads who want a homeless charter so local authorities can build houses? Why does he not listen to the pensioners who are crying out for an extra £20 a week so that they can keep warm this winter? Those are the policies that the people out there are shouting for, not these tinpot charters.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman is, I suppose, the greatest partisan of lost causes in the House, I regard his attack on the charter as rather a compliment to it. The work to improve performance in local government and central Government to meet the needs of people is reinforced by the work that we are doing on the charters.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Is not the success of the citizens charter demonstrated by the interest taken in it by European Governments and also by the interest now being expressed in the United States?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is entirely right. As the recent conference that we held in London showed, there is tremendous international interest in the citizens charter


principles. The president-elect of the new American Government has made it clear that he regards this kind of campaign, which is derided by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), as very important.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has previously told me, and states again in the report, that he intends that customers should give a view about the quality of service that they are receiving and that customers should be heard in relation to how charters are being met. How does he intend to involve the customer in setting charters in future instead of consulting them only after charters have been set?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member makes a good point. We announced in the first report that we would be conducting regular surveys of customer needs. That is a useful first step. However, the principle that the hon. Member states is absolutely right. In every case the service provider should sets objectives and standards after consulting the public and users of that service very widely.

Alcohol and Drugs

Mr. Michael: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to improve the co-ordination of Government policies on alcohol and drugs.

Mr. Waldegrave: Cabinet sub-committees, bringing together all relevant Government Departments, co-ordinate Goverment policy on alcohol and drugs. These are chaired respectively by me and by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister recognise that there is a need for all Government policies, including the application of the law, education, social services, housing provision and residential treatment, to be drawn together if we are to tackle those two misuses? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Health, who seems most obstinate in regard to listening to advice on the issue, and with her junior Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), and persuade them that the arrangements that are to come in from 1 April will greatly damage the provision of residential facilities for alcohol and drug misusers? Will he persuade his colleagues to find a new arrangement quickly before the threatened closures start to apply, from as early as February, so as to ensure that those facilities continue to be available?

Mr. Waldegrave: After my useful meeting with the hon. Gentleman and the all-party committee on alcohol abuse, I passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the representations that were made to me on that occasion. My right hon. Friend is clear that the community care new arrangements will meet the needs, but I have passed on the feelings of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on that matter.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the commitments in the original citizens charter White Paper have been met, or are in the process of being met.

Mr. Waldegrave: More than 90 per cent.

Mr. Streeter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his most encouraging reply. Is he aware that, despite the efforts of some courteous and hard-working staff, the British Rail service from Plymouth to Paddington remains at best patchy and at worst downright unreliable? Can he assure me that under his watchful eye standards will increase?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in a speech last week, that it is our intention to drive up standards on British Rail. The standards that we set this year were merely the starting point.

Mr. Barnes: Why are unemployment, homelessness, and the plight of pensioners described by the Secretary of State as "lost causes"? If they are lost causes by this Government, it is time this Government went.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to clarify exactly what I meant. It was not those important issues which are lost causes. A lost cause is anything that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) supports. This Government have done and are doing much more for those causes, which are close to our hearts, than the Labour Government ever did.

Research Councils (Budget)

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the budget of the five research councils.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The science budget in 1993–94 will be £1,164·6 million. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be announcing its distribution shortly.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which I suspect shows an increase in cash terms on the total budget for the five research councils, four of which have their headquarters in my constituency. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give the House that the budgets of the individual research councils will not be at the mercy of international currency fluctuations in so far as they affect the cost to Britain of its membership of such international organisations as CERN?

Mr. Jackson: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is right. The sum represents a 4 per cent. increase in cash terms, which is significant in what has been a difficult public expenditure round.
My hon. Friend asked about CERN and international subscriptions. It is a long-standing problem, although we have recently renegotiated our arrangements for CERN subscriptions to make it a little easier. The Advisory Board for the Research Councils will offer advice to my right hon. Friend shortly about how the increases will affect different councils. My right hon. Friend will then have to consider that advice to see what action we should take.

Dr. Bray: Will the Minister confirm that although the total for all Government expenditure remains as planned for next year, the science budget for research councils has been cut from that which had been previously planned? Does he acknowledge, therefore, that the effect of the creation of the Office of Science and Technology has been to reduce the priority given to science by the Government?

Mr. Jackson: I do not accept that at all. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong on that point. This year has been difficult for public expenditure. It has obviously had implications for every part of public expenditure, but we think that it is an important achievement to have safeguarded a 4 per cent. increase in cash terms.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend consider increasing the importance of near-market research, relative to fundamental research, as one of the mechanisms for improving our industrial strategy?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend's question is pertinent to the White Paper on science and technology which we are developing. That White Paper will be published early in the new year. Both science and technology are important. They feed through into the industrial development of the economy. Fundamental science provides the background of ideas and opportunities for training the people who will take forward science and technology throughout the economy.

Constituents Charter

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he proposes to implement a constituents charter.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have no such plans. Constituents already enjoy competition and choice—and the right to demand redress—through the ballot box.

Mr. Banks: That seems to be a great lost opportunity. Would it not be an imaginative extension of the charter principle if constituents—electors—were able to get some recompense from a Government who break promises that they made at the general election? To take one example from many—[Interruption.] the Prime Minister has come in on time—I refer to the promise made by the Prime Minister when, just before the election in April, he said, "Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery continues on Friday".

Mr. Waldegrave: So far as I remember, the deputy Leader of the Labour party has already withdrawn all the proposals made at the election, so the hon. Gentleman's suggestion seems rather foolish. He has had the opportunity to put the arguments to the electorate three or four times now, and he has always been rejected.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had a constituents charter there should be regular testing, as there is at general elections? In the past four general elections our constituents have had their say on how well we have behaved and performed. In 1979 they voted Conservative. In 1983 they voted Conservative. In 1987 they voted Conservative. In 1992 they voted Conservative. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has his answer on consumer testing of what policies our constituents prefer—those of the Labour party or those of the Conservative party.

Mr. Waldegrave: I would only complete the prospect by saying that it is likely that our constituents will do the same again in 1996 or 1997.

European Council (Edinburgh)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I represented the United Kingdom.
Let me first pay a warm tribute to the city of Edinburgh for its welcome, its first-rate organisation and the good-humoured way in which it accepted the necessary disruption of hosting such a big event.
On the agenda of the European Council were a series of interlocking issues: the economic situation in the Community and our proposed strategy for growth and jobs; the need to find a solution for Denmark's problems following its first referendum; the financing of the Community until the end of the century; the need to remove the block on the opening of enlargement negotiations with Sweden, Finland and Austria; the issues of subsidiarity and openness; and the long-standing issue of the site of a number of Community institutions. Beyond the Community, there were pressing issues to discuss on Macedonia and on Yugoslavia more generally.
We reached the following agreements. First, the European Council agreed on the growth initiative put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Community is on target to complete the single market—the world's largest free trade area—by the end of the British presidency. We are continuing to work for an early general agreement on tariffs and trade settlement, and—in line with our own deregulation initiative—there was agreement on the need to reduce Community burdens on business.
The European Council agreed to establish a new lending facility within the European investment bank to finance infrastructure projects throughout the Community, especially in transport, energy and telecommunications. This investment will be worth up to £7 billion over the next two years. The Council also agreed to set up a new European investment fund to guarantee loans for investment in trans-European networks and to small and medium-sized enterprises. Those guarantees can support projects worth up to £17 billion.
Additionally, member states agreed, following the pattern of our own autumn statement, to give priority to capital spending and encourage private investment; to keep the public sector wage bill under tight control; and to cut subsidies and increase competition. We have all agreed to pursue the prudent policies that will control inflation and create the conditions for lower interest rates across Europe.
Overall, the initiative proposed by my right hon. Friend could support up to £24 billion-worth of projects. It will help to boost confidence, support new investment and encourage business to create jobs throughout the Community.
Secondly, we agreed a solution to the issues raised by the Danish Government following their referendum. The solution is binding in international law. It does not in any way change the Maastricht treaty or require a new round of ratification in member states. It provides an interpretation of the treaty which Prime Minister Schlüter

believes will enable him to hold a second referendum in Denmark in the spring. It has been welcomed by all seven parties that drafted the original Danish document.
Thirdly, we have achieved an agreement which freezes Community spending until 1995. Until then, there will be no increase in the expenditure ceiling. Thereafter, it allows a gradual increase up to 1999. The overall increase is far smaller over seven years than the increase over five years that was agreed in 1988. It is less than half that originally proposed by the Commission. Moreover, the special rebate for Britain, which brings back about £2 billion a year to this country, remains unchanged and is now guaranteed for the rest of the century. Even then it could not be changed without our agreement.
Fourthly, negotiations for entry into the Community will start straight away with Sweden, Finland and Austria, with Norway to follow shortly afterwards. Work will also start to prepare the Visegrad countries of eastern Europe for Community membership, an aim endorsed by the Council for the first time. That is a breakthrough in the attitude of our partners and prepares the way for a far wider Community, stretching across eastern Europe.
Fifthly, the Council agreed a package of measures to reverse centralisation. The Edinburgh statement makes it clear that national decisions should be the rule and Brussels action the exception. The Commission also produced two lists of measures: first, proposals which fail the subsidiarity test and will be dropped or changed; and, secondly, a list of Community laws which the Commission believes must be simplified or abolished. Further proposals for reducing the burden of legislation will follow.
Sixthly, as we said we would do at Birmingham, we have put together a package of measures to open up the Community to scrutiny by the people of Europe. The Commission will consult more widely before making proposals. This will include the publication of Green Papers to allow an input by member states before formal proposals come forward.
Seventhly, on the sites of institutions, we have signed a decision confirming the sites and working arrangements for all the main Community institutions. This settles a problem that has bedevilled the Community for more than 30 years.
The number of Members of the European Parliament increases by 49 to 567, to reflect in particular the growth in the population of Germany from 61 million to nearly 80 million following unification. Under the arrangement, Britain, France and Italy will each have six more members of Parliament. Weighted voting in the Council of Ministers remains unchanged, with Britain, France, Italy and Germany retaining 10 votes each.
We needed to solve all those issues if the Community was to regain its confidence, but they were far from the only issues on our minds. Macedonia could be a tinderbox for a wider Balkan conflict. At the meeting, we were able to agree to unblock European Community and international economic assistance to Macedonia, which will help to provide stability in that country. We unreservedly backed the United Nations plan to put a battalion of soldiers in Macedonia to monitor the peace there. We gave our support to putting a similar United Nations force in Kosovo. In Bosnia, we have called for the Security Council to examine systematically the operation of the no-fly zone. We believe that the first step should be for the United Nations to draw up a report on violations of the zone.
I believe that the majority of people in this country want us to make a success of our membership of the European Community. That is not just a matter of idealism: it is a matter of hard-headed national self-interest. Anyone who looks objectively at what has been agreed under the British presidency, and at this European Council in particular, can take pride in Britain's achievement.
The Community has reached decisions on issues which many thought were insoluble. It has come together again as 12 member states with a common purpose. It has solved many of its intractable problems. It has prepared the way for enlargement. It has made itself more responsive to public opinion. It is tackling the most urgent problems within our own continent. It has taken concerted action, which will offer hope for growth and employment. Those are all substantial results—good for the European Community as a whole and good for this country—and I commend the outcome unreservedly to the House.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his warm tribute to the city of Edinburgh and its first-rate organisation, which will be much appreciated by its Labour council—[Interruption.) I think that hon. Members should agree with the Prime Minister when he pays such a tribute. As a citizen of Edinburgh, I do so.
On the substance of the statement, may I say how much Labour Members welcomed the agreement made at the summit to commence enlargement negotiations at the beginning of 1993. Those negotiations will allow applications from Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway to be considered without delay. Enlargement will provide a new and healthy dynamic for the whole Community and the inclusion of European neighbours with such strong democratic traditions will be of great benefit to us all.
Does the Prime Minister accept that enlargement creates a necessary opportunity to reform Community institutions to make them more open, democratic and efficient? Will he say in a little more detail what specific action is proposed to help the Visegrad countries proceed with economic and political reform?
We also welcome the accommodation for Denmark. There has been a satisfactory recognition all round of the need to keep the Community together by meeting Danish concerns and responding to the national consensus proposals, in the construction of which Mr. Poul Rasmussen, the leader of the Danish Social Democratic party, played such a leading role.
The concern expressed at the summit about the deteriorating position in the former Yugoslavia is welcome, as is the emphatic denunciation of the barbaric treatment of Muslim women and other victims of brutal violence. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Community will never recognise states established by force and the despicable policy of ethnic cleansing?
As the mandatory sanctions agreed by the United Nations are apparently being breached on an unacceptable scale, was not that matter discussed at the summit? Is it not now clear that Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs must be denied the supplies and materials to allow them to wage war and that there must be the political will to achieve that objective? Will the Community insist that the autonomy of Kosovo is restored and human rights safeguarded there?
On subsidiarity, although we agree that there should be a proper balancing of Community and national responsibilities, would not the Government's adhesion to

the principle and the guidelines set out at the summit be more convincing if they were prepared to accept the principle of subsidiarity within the United Kingdom? Should not the Government accept the same logic at home and tackle the over-centralised nature of the British state, which is such a depressing feature of Conservative government?
May I say how much I welcome one aspect of the Commission's review of all its proposals in the light of the subsidiarity principle. That is the conclusion reached at the end of the section 2 of annex 2 to part I of the conclusions, which states:
Turning to social policy, the Commission considers that the group of directives based on Article 118a of the Treaty is too recent to warrant re-examination. Instead its priority will be to supplement them by implementing all the provisions of the Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers.
Despite the deplorable neglect of social issues throughout the British presidency, and the foolish British opt-out, is not the social chapter alive and well and fully supported by all other member states? Given that one of the Danish negotiating achievements was that member states could insist on even higher levels of social provision, is there not some justified optimism that the forthcoming Danish presidency will correct the neglect of the British presidency?
Should not the economic measures be judged against the scale of the severe economic problems facing Europe, which are most acute in Britain? As The Times reminds us today, unemployment is rising twice as fast in Britain as in any other European Community country. Against a backdrop of barely 1 per cent. growth forecast for next year and with unemployment in the Community expected to rise above 11 per cent., should not the recovery of economic growth and the stimulation of employment have been crucial objectives of the summit? In that desperately serious context, the increase in facilities for the European investment bank and the establishment of the European investment fund—while welcome, as any improvements would be—fall far short of what is needed to get the European economy moving again.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the extra £6 billion for the whole Community will amount to less than 0.01 per cent. of total EC output, and that the highly optimistic forecast of £24 billion in new investment which might conceivably be generated is put sharply in focus by the Commission's forecast that investment in the European Community will be £32 billion below normal levels next year? Given that, at the very best, there is likely to be an £8 billion investment gap, how can anyone believe that the economic challenge has been met?
Why will there be a delay of six months in putting into place the new facilities? Why were such initiatives not taken at the beginning of the presidency so that they could start now? How many jobs does the Prime Minister calculate will be created in the United Kingdom? Given the appalling prospect of sharply rising unemployment, why was there no proposal for an emergency employment programme right across the Community?
Finally, will not the people of the European Community regard action against unemployment as the most important test of the Community's relevance to their lives? It remains a matter of concern and regret that that dimension has been so consistently downgraded throughout the whole of the British presidency.

The Prime Minister: With great good will, I have to say that that was a mealy-mouthed and nitpicking speech. For weeks, both at home and abroad, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have been disparaging about the British presidency. Right across Europe today, the Heads of the Governments who deal with us have praised the outcome of the summit, but we have heard not a single word of retraction from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One day, he will learn that opposition for its own sake is not opposition of any value. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed enlargement, welcomed Denmark and welcomed the declarations, all of which he suspected we would not obtain at the summit.
On the specific questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, the summit has enhanced the trade measures for the Visegrad countries to help to prepare them for the Community. As for recognising states established by force, I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: we shall not recognise any state established in that fashion.
The issue of breaching sanctions was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues, who considered the actions that need to be taken to strengthen the sanctions procedure. We shall consider that afresh. On the matter of subsidiarity, I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still unable to draw the distinction between subsidiarity, which produces something down from international to national Governments, and devolution, which removes it from national Governments and gives it to regional governments. He will know that there is far more administrative devolution in this country than there ever was during the time of any Government in which he served. He must also wait for the proposals that we shall have early in the new year.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks on expenditure, he is now alone among the socialist leaders of the Community in apparently believing that fiscal measures of a Keynesian variety—with large revenue expenditure—are the right way to deal with the problem. Every other socialist leader wants to meet the Maastricht criteria; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about Europe, but votes against it, speaks against it and acts against it.
On economic measures—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: A total failure.

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear that the opposition to Europe of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) carries the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with him. I hope that the whole country will note that the position of the hon. Gentleman is similar to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
On economic measures, the proposals advanced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were warmly welcomed by all the Heads of Government. They will support up to £24 billion-worth of projects, and they will be capital projects, quite apart from the enhanced moneys from the structural and cohesion funds which will also be used for capital projects. There is no doubt among the Heads of the Community: they believe that this is the right package; it is only those who nitpick here who seek to criticise it.

Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. Friend recognise what many of his friends and colleagues in every part of the House will recognise—that his extraordinary mastery and grasp of the complex European Community features at the Edinburgh summit as well as his mastery of the volatile intergovernmental aspects of the summit unmistakably demonstrate that the Maastricht treaty is the creature, not the coercer, of sovereign Heads of State and as such deserves a fair wind from all part of the House?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's last point is entirely right. If some of the right hon. and hon. Members among the Opposition who believe that there will be a European central state had sat in the European Council and heard the debate, it would have removed that fear from their minds for good and all. If they understood the Community better, they might oppose it less.

Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the Prime Minister on a positive outcome to the Edinburgh summit, consolidating progress towards European union. Will he assure me in respect of the interim Danish solution that he certainly does not favour a two-tier solution for the Community? In respect of subsidiarity, is he aware that we welcome the clear statement that, in matters of Community law, the International Court of Justice will be the arbiter?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first time I have heard him distinguish between subsidiarity and devolution? That distinction was certainly not clear to the 25,000 people who demonstrated in Edinburgh for a Scottish parliament.

The Prime Minister: It was entirely clear among the Heads of State at Birmingham, and it was discussed and made public at that time.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome. Underpinning all our discussions at Edinburgh was the belief that the Community should continue to go ahead as 12—not as 11, 10 or any other number—until such time as it was enlarged.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the agreement with Denmark. It is a binding legal agreement between Governments, but if necessary the arbiter will be the International Court of Justice.

Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he has fully earned the tributes that the rest of Europe have paid him for his skill and success at Edinburgh? He has opened the way for Europe to develop in a better and more decentralised direction, which is wholly in the interests of this nation.
When my right hon. Friend speaks of new guidance and procedures to limit the powers of Brussels to interfere in our affairs, will he assure us about the way in which this and other nation states and the House of Commons will be able to decide what is subsidiary and which powers lie with us? That is preferable to these matters being decided on a judge-and-jury basis by Community institutions in Brussels.

The Prime Minister: The definition of subsidiarity itself lies in article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, and it is on that basis that the judgment will be made as to whether or not individual matters are subsidiary. We are seeking to prepare a series of lists. The first were published at Edinburgh last week. There will be a continuous stream of


them. What is subsidiarity will remain continually under review in the House and in Europe. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about the sort of Europe that we want to develop—a wider, more responsive and decentralised Europe.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Prime Minister knows the difference between presentational and substantive success, and between the applause of European leaders and that of his own people. On the question of Denmark, the Prime Minister asserted that the arrangement was legally binding. If it is, surely there must have been an amendment to the treaty. If there was, it must be ratified before it becomes effective. As to subsidiarity, if the Prime Minister wants to convince us that there is both the will and the intention to transfer power to national parliaments, surely he will have to do something more than present a list of trivia through the Commission and to evade such substantive matters as the return of the common agricultural policy to the peoples and Governments of the member states.

The Prime Minister: Sometimes, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be convinced about changing attitudes within Europe. As to his point about trivia, it is precisely trivial laws—although this might cover others as well—that have caused so much frustration, anger and annoyance throughout the European Community for so many years. This is a legally binding, intergovernmental agreement. It is binding in international law. That was the clear and unequivocal advice of Council legal services, accepted by the European Council—but it does not change the substantive nature of the treaty itself.

Mr. William Cash: Given that my right hon. Friend has negotiated an opt-out for the British in respect of a single currency and a central bank, why is it that the Danes are allowed to ratify when they choose to do so—namely, now—whereas the United Kingdom must wait several years?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks an intriguing question. The arrangements that we have on the single currency, whereby we decide whether or not we join it in 1996—are arrangements that we judged to be right for this country. We also have a special provision not to take part in the social chapter. We have made provisions that we think are right for our country; Denmark sought provisions that it believes are right for that country—and the Community has accommodated both of us.

Mr. Giles Radice: If the Edinburgh summit has genuinely succeeded in putting Europe back together, as the Prime Minister said—and as many of us hoped—is not the reason that all 12 Community members were prepared to compromise? It is not so much a triumph for Britain and the Prime Minister—more a success for the European Community.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm that it is a success for the European Community. Everyone has compromised, and I am delighted to have played a part in bringing them to that compromise.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is not one of the most encouraging features of the agreement the fact that European Community leaders were determined to dispense with constitutional gobbledegook and to make it

possible for the conditions for the Danes to succeed? Is it now possible that European Community leaders will take the measures necessary to open their borders, so that the east European countries can trade freely with the Community and in time take their full part as Community members?

The Prime Minister: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend on that point. We made progress on that at Edinburgh over the past few days. We have agreed to enhance the special trade agreements with east European countries. In addition, we have for the first time agreed that the Visegrad countries will in due course become full members of the Community. We have held that out as a potential prospect in the future. This is the first time that we have ever stated unequivocally that when the east European countries are ready, the European Community will be open to them. That means that we will have the opportunity—although admittedly some years ahead—of moving the Community's boundaries much further across eastern Europe. In terms of security, trade and prosperity, that is a remarkable move forward.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I congratulate the Prime Minister on what was undoubtedly a very effective and efficient chairmanship of the summit. I also thank him for his kind words about the capital city of Edinburgh—a city with two parliament buildings but no parliament of its own.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that, given that the Spanish and Danish questions dominated the summit, he has finally given the lie to the idea propounded by his party that small nations cannot affect the direction or the development of Europe? Having said in his statement that national decisions should be the rule rather than the exeption, how can he continue to deny the right of the peoples of Scotland and Wales to have their own parliaments? The demand for that right was clearly demonstrated by the 25,000 people who were on the streets of Edinburgh on Saturday—people kept outside their own buildings.

The Prime Minister: Many may think that a rather contrary view was expressed by rather more people on 9 April.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her opening remarks. I think that both large and small nations must be treated with great care, and ascribed great importance, in the Community; Spain, I think, would regard itself as rather a large nation.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Once again, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated—as he did at Maastricht—that his tough but flexible approach to negotiation is the best way of defending British interests. I welcome the success of his presidency and, in particular, the proposals for enlargement of the Community.
Is it envisaged that the new members of the Community will subscribe to the common agricultural policy, which—in the context of an enlarged Community—is an increasingly anachronistic arrangement?

The Prime Minister: They will, of course, subscribe to the general principles of the common agricultural policy; they will have to negotiate on specific points, as this country did when it became a member of the Community many years ago.
I welcome enlargement—not only for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have already given but because each of the Nordic applicants for Community membership will be a net contributor to the Community budget. That, in due course, will ease the position for all the other contributors.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What discussions did the Prime Minister have in Edinburgh with other European leaders about GATT? More especially, how did he get on with the French?

The Prime Minister: GATT is on course, as a result of decisions that we made at the Birmingham summit some time ago. The Council recognised the fundamental importance of GATT to the world economy. Negotiations are continuing: agreement has been reached between the United States and the Community, and the negotiations are now concentrating on other matters at Geneva. The Commission, which negotiates for the Community, is negotiating in a hard and constructive manner. The aim is a political understanding before the end of the year.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues, not only on what they achieved in Edinburgh but on their achievements during a difficult six months of the British presidency.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome, extremely small increase in European Community financing between now and 1999—it amounts to significantly less than one tenth of 1 per cent.—compares very favourably with the one-third increase that was agreed in 1988? Is it not a tribute to the co-operation and far-sightedness of all the participating nations at Edinburgh?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right about the realism shown by nation states in the Edinburgh negotiations. It was, I think, generally realised that, in the present economic climate, it was not appropriate to increase expenditure by a substantial amount, even over the coming years. It was for that reason particularly that the summit agreed a two-year freeze in the ceiling before any increase in the contributions is effective.
At present, the United Kingdom's net contribution is about £2 billion a year. It would be £4 billion but for the rebate, which remains and—lest there be any doubt—is extended to cover the fresh areas of expenditure that were agreed at Maastricht. In the case of the cohesion fund, for example, that means that we would pay only 5 per cent. of the total cost.

Mr. William Ross: Given that the solution to the Danish problem appears to be based on an interpretation of the treaty, can the Prime Minister tell the House and the country to which interpretation of the treaty the Government and the country are being asked to sign up—the Danish interpretation or that apparently accepted as definitive by the rest of the Community?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clarification agreement signed in respect of

Denmark and the Danes' opt-out provision on the single currency. The face of the treaty remains as it was; there has been no change in that.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I wish to draw further attention to the truly remarkable agreement about Denmark, whereby the treaty is to be amended in a manner that is legally enforceable but does not give rise to any necessity for further ratification in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the House votes to amend the treaty in any manner, he will ensure that that vote gives rise to an amendment that is legally enforceable but does not require ratification around Europe?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's assumption that the treaty is legally binding and that the face of the treaty is not changed is entirely correct. I myself do not anticipate that there will be amendments to the treaty during its passage through the House.

Mr. Tony Benn: My question is to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister, not as outgoing President of the European Community. Is he aware that, by denying the British people the right that the Danes, the Irish and the French have enjoyed—to determine the matter for themselves—and by drafting the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in such a way that the House of Commons has no right to call for a referendum, he is running against the flow of democratic development in this country, which, for many years, has been from the centre down to the people and has prepared us for a Europe run by the edicts of a junta of European Heads of State which will be the means by which laws are enforced in future? That represents a direct betrayal of democracy and will not work without the consent that is essential if any European co-operation is to succeed.

The Prime Minister: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is talking colossal nonsense. On the most important matters for this country there is unanimity and, without unanimity, there is no agreement. We have no tradition of referendums in this country. We have had a referendum on Europe—in which the right hon. Gentleman played a significant part—the purpose of which was not to determine the issue but to cure the splits in the then Labour Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people believe that, without his leadership at Edinburgh, the summit would not have been a success and that, because of that, he deserves immense congratulations? Will he now try to ensure that all his Ministers go out to explain to the British people what Maastricht is all about? Too many people still do not understand the treaty, and it would be useful if Ministers pushed the thing forward as quickly as possible. Will my right hon. Friend also try to ensure that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill goes forward as quickly as possible, as many people are sick to death of hearing about it over and over again and would be delighted if the House could get on with dealing with other matters rather than spending too much time on the Bill?

The Prime Minister: I am pleased that my hon. Friend looks forward to discussing the Bill. He is certainly correct in saying that it is all too easy to misrepresent the Bill—often in statements that are a grotesque parody of what is


in it and of what it means—rather than dealing with its realities, which are very much in the hard-headed economic and commercial self-interest of this country.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that what he has said today, and what was achieved at the Edinburgh conference, has nothing in it to help pensioners who will be starving this winter and who need heat and more money in their pockets? Is he aware that he has brought nothing back for the unemployed—4 million of them—or for all those kids who need proper schools or for the homeless? All he has done is to fall in line, like a patsy should, with the Franco-German axis and take 100 million quid of British taxpayers' money to achieve some so-called "success".

The Prime Minister: I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman rehearsed that point, but it was time wasted. I thought that the dinosaur was dead—clearly not.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he engendered a spirit of co-operation, of compromise and of working together at the conference, which was an outstanding achievement. Bearing in mind the fact that the public have often not been given enough information about the Community, the treaty and future developments, on which I think the anti-Europeans are right, what are the plans in detail for making the Council of Ministers more open? Will my right hon. Friend use his role in the troika to work to make it more open, not in the formation of policy—which would be a lot to ask—but in legislation?

The Prime Minister: We have agreed at the meeting in Edinburgh that we will make the Council of Ministers more open up to and including the extent that certain sessions of it will be open to television.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On several occasions, the Prime Minister has told the House that the decisions on the Danish opt-out, being an agreement between 12 Heads of State or Government, is binding in international law; we accept that. However, as the primary law of the Maastricht treaty and the primary law of the treaty of Rome is European Community law, will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the decision is also binding in European Community law?

The Prime Minister: No. This is an intergovernmental decision. It is binding between Governments. It is judicable not at the European Court of Justice but at the International Court at The Hague.

Mrs. Judith Chaplin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his achievement at Edinburgh, particularly on the emphasis on the importance of subsidiarity. Does he agree that, too often, hostility to petty over-regulation from Brussels has detracted from the genuine benefits to business and consumers of the completion of the single market—benefits which we shall increasingly see from the end of this year?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. She is right to draw attention to the fact that the British presidency has now completed the single market. Fifty measures have been concluded during the British

presidency. The single market will be open for business from 1 January. That will increase trade, increase prosperity and, yes, increase jobs.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit this is not a very elevated question, I have given the Prime Minister notice of it. What do I say to constituents in Bathgate or Fauldhouse—to people not living in the city of Edinburgh who in no way benefited from what was a national occasion—who think that, through their poll tax, they have had a quite disproportionate payment to make? What were the expenses? What is the Prime Minister going to say to British Telecom, which put on a shame-making performance for us all, by using Meadowbank and not allowing incoming calls for distinguished foreign journalists? Many of our guests were extremely angry.

The Prime Minister: I have made inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's latter point. We have no knowledge of the particular incident to which he refers, but we will investigate it and I shall write to him at the end of the investigation. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, the police costs of £2·6 million will of course be covered in the normal way—51 per cent. by central Government and the remaining 49 per cent. by the local authorities.
What the hon. Gentleman might have missed in his question is a significant cash benefit that actually went to many people in Edinburgh as a result of holding the European Council there. It is difficult to put a precise figure on it, but estimates that I have seen are around £10 million to £11 million.

Mr. Tim Renton: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on weaving their way so successfully through the intricacies of the Edinburgh summit. Does my right hon. Friend think that, provided that Denmark and the House ratify the Maastricht treaty reasonably quickly, the dangers of a two-speed Europe have receded—a two-speed Europe that would be deeply damaging to inward investment in this country, British industry and British jobs?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right, in that the dangers of that happening have receded. He is also right in saying that we must do all we can to prevent it from coming about at any stage in the future. We certainly shall.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the Prime Minister clarify the financing of the welcome new cohesion fund? Will he confirm that the money made available for that fund will not in any way draw money away from the Community's structural fund, which is used for investment in essential projects in Britain's regions? Could the cohesion fund be used in the future to benefit not only Europe's poorer countries but its poorer regions, including England's northern region, which has yet to be aligned with the rest of Britain, let alone the rest of the European Community?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, it is the structural fund that deals with regions; the cohesion fund specifically deals with the four least prosperous countries in the Community. I can confirm that the cohesion fund in no way draws resources away from the structural fund, both of which were increased in the future financing agreement that we made.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman:: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the horse-trading that went on at Edinburgh to achieve the results of the conference, the Danes have been granted their opt-outs, the Germans will get 18 new MEPs and the Spanish will get a handout through the cohesion fund, without which they would have held up the agreement? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that neither he nor the House has the moral right to grant that money without first consulting the British people about the massive increase in taxation that they will face, which will be necessary to pay for that money?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend cannot have looked at the figures with any great care. The effect on the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community will be less than 0·1 per cent., and it will not even reach that dizzy figure until 1999. In return for that, our abatement, which is worth £2 billion a year, has been reconfirmed to the end of the century. We will also be eligible for structural funds and we will receive net advantages from the cohesion fund. On balance, my hon. Friend may consider it rather a good deal.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the progress made at Edinburgh and I hope that the Maastricht Bill will move forward rapidly to the statute book, so that we can get on with dealing with issues such as unemployment and the economic problems that face us. Can the Prime Minister clarify the position regarding the six additional MEPs? Is there one each for Wales and Scotland? What progress has been made in relation to the Committee of the Regions? Can he clarify whether the new Green Papers, to which he referred, will not just be considered by the Governments of each member state but, in line with the subsidiarity principle, may be discussed at a lower level, including that of regional and local government?

The Prime Minister: On the Green Papers, the Commission has offered to send them to Select Committees of the House and other interested bodies, so there will be wide consultation. The Committee of the Regions was not discussed at the Edinburgh summit, but we are still determining how the composition of that Committee may be finally decided upon. The provision of six extra MEPs will mean that fresh boundaries are set across England, Scotland and Wales, which will be a matter for the Boundary Commission, not the Government.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he greatly deserves the tributes that he is getting from all parts of the House on the outcome of the Edinburgh summit, which is in Britain's and Europe's best interests? May I ask him to utilise the great support that he has on this issue to press on with the Maastricht Bill to get it through the House sooner rather than later?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that advice. The Bill will be returning to the House shortly after we return from the Christmas recess.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that welfare benefits and welfare services will not be cut as a result of the agreement that we got at Edinburgh?

The Prime Minister: There will be no increase either next year or the year after in Britain's net contribution to the European Community; nor will there be an increase from any other nation state over the next two years—that is the period covered by our press statement. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes—I can give him the confirmation for which he asks.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most significant things he said to the House was on enlargement, particularly as it affects the countries of central and eastern Europe? Does he further accept that, for many parliamentarians in those countries, that opportunity, which I believe is now firmly in place, is one of great significance? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that matter will be looked at with the greatest possible urgency?

The Prime Minister: I most certainly can give that assurance. When I visited the Visegrad countries earlier this year, it was clear that the opportunity to enter the Community would be a lifeline of hope for them at a time when they face real economic difficulties. They will be delighted that that is now certain in due course and not just an option that may be considered.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will not yet another superhumanly brilliant, stunningly successful triumph and great victory leave most people in Europe unmoved because it does not address any of their concerns, the main one of which is the 17 million people who are unemployed across the Community? That was caused mainly by the exchange rate mechanism, which was stage 1 of monetary union.

The Prime Minister: I rather fancy that the 17 million people who are unemployed may notice the proposed £24 billion package; there is surely a relationship between the two, as the hon. Gentleman should realise.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the specific successes that were achieved under his skilful presidency at Edinburgh. Does he agree, however, that the main achievement of the summit, which should continue to be emphasised constantly, was to strengthen the move that he began at Maastricht last year from federalism and centralisation towards a broader, more flexible Europe of nations, which would be more acceptable to the peoples of not only this country but most of Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is entirely right. It is important to bring the European Community a good deal nearer to the people who elect its members and who ultimately pay for the expenditure that it incurs. [Interruption.] That has been sought for many years but, far from being impossible, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mutters, we are now doing it.

Mr. John McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that claims of success at Edinburgh will cut no ice with the vast majority of Scots, who will never share his southern and suburban sense of Scotland as a mere appendage of Greater England? Does he realise that the only lasting European settlement will be one founded on democracy and the national right to self-determination and that, although he may have been successful in shutting out Scottish democracy at Edinburgh, Scottish democracy will prevail by winning a Scottish parliament and shutting


out for ever the minority and undemocratic Government whom he has imposed on our country for the past 14 years?

The Prime Minister: What upsets the hon. Gentleman is that his ideals and his party have been a minority for too long. That is his problem.

Sir Richard Body: As a result of the summit, are the French Government now willing to change their mind about the GATT negotiations?

The Prime Minister: They gave no indication either way at the summit, but they certainly made no attempt to prevent the GATT procedure from continuing at Geneva.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister has asserted in a number of answers that the nature of the treaty on European union will not be affected by the declaration on Denmark. If so, why must the declaration be in the form of a legally binding international treaty? Is not the European Council in danger of setting itself up as a Caesars' collective that can not only require legislation for the whole Community but change treaties under discussion without ratification by Parliaments or assemblies of the people that they represent? Does that not show that the European Community and union, far from being people's organisations, are a means for top people to impose their will on others?

The Prime Minister: Precisely not. The hon. Gentleman began with a fallacy and moved on from there. What was agreed was an intergovernmental binding decision, not a treaty. There is a clear distinction between the two.

Sir George Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend correct in saying that, even after the Edinburgh meeting, there is still no legal definition of the concept of subsidiarity that will stand up to test in the European Court?

The Prime Minister: No, my hon. Friend is not correct about that. The legal definition of subsidiarity is in article 3b of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Surely the Government have all the evidence they need of Serbian violations of the air exclusion zone over Bosnia, of which there have been more than 200. Surely the urgent need is not for yet another report but for United Nations action to enforce its exclusion zone.

The Prime Minister: The declaration that was made at the Edinburgh summit made it clear that the United Nations should now look closely at the situation—at the number of violations—and decide how to proceed. That is what the United Nations will now do.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is not one of the most significant achievements at Edinburgh the fact that uncertainty has been removed for the foreseeable future and that we can now see a positive way forward? In that context, should not the decision to proceed with enlargement be welcomed, especially by those who wish to see a change in the character of the Community, which is wholly consistent with the Government's views?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that. I think that it does, over time, change the character of the Community. Equally relevantly, I think that extending the

borders of the Community is not only right economically, in terms of extending free trade areas; I believe that it will be seen over the years to be right in security and other political terms as well. I am bound to say that had Yugoslavia, for example, become a member of the Community 30 years ago, I very much doubt that the present difficulties would exist.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Why are the Government so pusillanimous about intervention against Serbia? Is it not clear that arrangements will have to be made to stop Serbian aggression by taking out Serbian guns and by keeping their planes out of the air? Is it not essential that the Bosnian Muslims should be allowed to get arms and ammunition with which to defend themselves against Serbian massacres?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can share the analysis or the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are seeking, not least as a result of the London conference on Yugoslavia which was launched under our presidency, a negotiated political settlement to the present difficulties. That does seem to be the right way forward, allied with the no-fly zone which we have imposed, and also with the substantial amount of humanitarian aid. British troops are there delivering humanitarian aid. The hon. Gentleman may know that, far from being a soft option, those soldiers undergo grave risks—indeed, they were attacked by mortars today. It is right for them to be there, but we should acknowledge the danger they face in delivering that humanitarian aid.

Mr. James Paice: My right hon. Friend has shown that the most effective way of achieving change is negotiation from within. Does he agree that the most important factor in terms of recovery—not only our recovery from recession but Europe's recovery from its problems—will be the two lists of directives and regulations which he described in his statement and which are to be dropped, reviewed or abolished? Will he undertake that for every European directive or regulation that is abolished, we shall not only abolish the relevant legislation in this country but match it by abolishing another home-grown regulation, thereby giving British business the best opportunity for recovery?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that is a very worthy ambition indeed, and I have charged my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs with making himself the most unpopular member of the Government by destroying directives that are beloved of individual Departments. I hope and expect him to do that speedily. The subsidiarity lists released at Edinburgh are, of course, not final lists—they are but preliminary lists, and more will follow.

Mr. Lew Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept that his refusal to hold a referendum on the treaty shows that he is treating the views of the electorate with disdain and saying that their views are not important? Does he also accept that his refusal to hold a referendum shows that he recognises that there is no support for the treaty outside the House?

The Prime Minister: My views on the referendum mean no such thing as described by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that, as a parliamentary democracy, we should


adhere to the traditions of a parliamentary democracy. That is what I was elected to do here, and I thought that was what the hon. Gentleman was elected for as well.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that the increase in the budget will amount to one first-class stamp per family in the United Kingdom in two years' time and that all the new entrants to the Community are likely to be net contributors, can we not press forward with the enlargement of the Community as quickly as possible and, putting the recent past behind us, get the treaty ratified in the House as quickly as possible, even if it means staying up all night, every night for a couple of weeks to do so?

The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend says about ratification. On getting new entrants into the Community, during our presidency, we have virtually completed the dossiers that will enable negotiations with the Nordic countries to begin very speedily. I very much hope that at least three of them, and possibly four, will join the Community by the beginning of 1995.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister confidently announced a number of economic initiatives. In the light of Edinburgh, can he now confidently predict a reduction in unemployment over the next 12 months? If he cannot give that guarantee, surely Edinburgh has failed the real test set by the public outside who want a reduction in unemployment. Why was the European emergency programme for jobs not on the agenda?

The Prime Minister: It is not all that long ago that the hon. Gentleman asked me similar questions and asked me to tell him when inflation would be reduced. He will know that it is now down to 3 per cent., and he might occasionally voice his congratulations to the Government on that matter. No Government have ever given estimates on unemployment, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. Of course our policy is geared to bringing down unemployment and to creating permanent jobs, but we cannot do that without low inflation and without the lower interest rates that we now have. We have set the framework for job creation and we must now ensure, not least by removing many of the burdens on business, that business will expand, grow, invest and create jobs. That is what this summit was about.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend's negotiating skills have shown remarkable results. Will he use those negotiating skills to look carefully into the situation in Scotland, where the summit took place? Some 74 per cent. of Scots did not support the Conservative party at the general election. My right hon. Friend has heard some of the comments from the Opposition Benches today, and he has seen the demonstration and heard the speeches made in Scotland. Does he recognise that, if we continue to bypass Parliament and to give powers to Europe, the Scots may end up breaking up the union that really matters—the Union of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I believe that there is widespread appreciation across the whole of the United Kingdom about the importance of the Union. It is not just a question

of the Union being important for Scotland, although I believe it is: the Union is equally important to England. Scotland's contribution to the United Kingdom is vital both within the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom within Europe. There should be no doubt that it is a two-way process.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Secretary who said last week before the summit that, whatever the outcome of the summit, the Government would claim that it was what they had always intended? Given that the summit failed entirely to deal properly with unemployment, with social policy and with subsidiarity, is it not the case that the Prime Minister's self-congratulatory glow about his statement today is nothing more than over-egging the pudding?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do well to look at what his right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party and his hon. Friends were predicting about the summit. When he has looked at their predictions and when he then sees what happens, he will notice a sharp difference between their predictions of failure and the outcome on a whole range of subjects.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Prime Minister has clearly enjoyed his visit to one of the great nations of the United Kingdom. Was he able to form a judgment that the partial pooling of sovereignty which took place almost 300 years ago has brought about rather better results for both partners in the United Kingdom than did the endless warfare that preceded it?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. His remarks chime neatly with the point I made a moment ago about the importance of the Union both to England and to Scotland.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: At the Edinburgh summit, what discussions did the Prime Minister have on the growing feeling that Europe is becoming a fortress against those fleeing from oppression and intolerance in other parts of the world? What discussions took place on the passage of the Asylum Bill in this country and the change in the German constitution to reduce the number of asylum seekers entering Germany, which are widely seen by the Nazi right throughout Europe as victories that they have achieved? Does not the Prime Minister think that it is important to recognise that Europe has a major role to play in accepting and welcoming victims of oppression from wherever they come, rather than slamming the door in their faces?

The Prime Minister: Far from being a fortress, the Heads of Government at the Edinburgh summit agreed over time to open the boundaries of the Community to bring new nations into the Community. There can be no better way of showing that Europe is not a fortress. As to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about right-wing extremism which has occurred in a number of countries in Europe, there is great concern about that among all Heads of Government—none more so than Chancellor Kohl, who has denounced it very roundly and taken action against it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move to the next statement.

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government finance matters in Wales.
On 12 November I proposed the levels of total standard spending and aggregate external finance for Wales. I am pleased to announce to the House today a further increase in TSS and AEF for 1993–94 of £1·6 million, in recognition of the additional responsibilities which local authorities will assume from next April following changes to the independent living fund. This increases the overall levels of TSS and AEF which I propose to provide in 1993–94 to £2,599·8 million and £2,344·2 million respectively.
The levels of council tax set in Wales will depend on the budgetary decisions of local authorities. I am, however, determined that local taxpayers in Wales should be protected from unreasonable council tax bills. I therefore announced in May that, for the first time, for 1993–94 I would issue provisional capping criteria to assist local authorities in their budgetary decision making. I consider capping criteria to be necessary because for both 1991–92 and 1992–93 the overall level of budgets set by local authorities in Wales have exceeded my plans by around 3 per cent., despite settlement packages for those years which together provided for increases in the level of revenue spending of almost 25 per cent.
I am today announcing my provisional capping criteria. However, because of changes in local authority functions in 1993–94—essentially the loss of further education and the acquisition of community care responsibilities—and other changes arising from the Local Government Finance Act 1992, it is not possible, for the purpose of capping, to make a direct comparison between budgets set by local authorities in 1992–93 and the budgets to be set for 1993–94. As a result, I will exercise my statutory powers to specify for each authority in Wales a base position, known as a relevant notional amount, to measure budget increases for the purposes of applying capping.
I intend to allow larger increases for authorities that set budgets closer to their standard spending assessments—SSAs—whose budgets are relatively higher. My intended capping criteria are: first, any increase of more than 2·5 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement above the authority's SSA; secondly, any increase of more than 1·75 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 1 per cent. above the authority's SSA; thirdly, any increase of more than 1 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA; fourthly, any increase of more than 0·5 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA; finally, any budget requirement more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA will be considered excessive subject to certain conditions. An authority that sets its budget at or below its SSA will not be capped.
I have placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House full details of my proposed capping criteria, a draft of the report setting out each Welsh authority's notional

amount on the basis of its calculation, and details of each authority's provisional standard spending assessment for 1993–94.
Provisional standard spending assessments have been calculated in accordance with distribution formulae that have been agreed with the local authority associations in Wales and ratified by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. Details of my provisional capping criteria and provisional standard spending assessments and a copy of the draft notional amounts report are being sent to every local authority in Wales. Authorities have the opportunity to make representations on notional amounts before I lay the report for the approval of the House.
My capping criteria are, of necessity, provisional. I will take account of all appropriate considerations in making my decisions on capping. Local authorities have all the information that they need to make progress in setting their budgets for the coming financial year. In the present economic climate, I consider my proposals for local government revenue spending to be reasonable.
I turn now to capital resources. Following the autumn review of public expenditure, I have decided to issue capital grant and credit approvals to local authorities for 1993–94 amounting to £483·5 million. This, coupled with the use by local authorities of their own resources as enhanced by the temporary relaxation of the debt redemption rules relating to capital receipts, is expected to deliver gross capital expenditure of £620·1 million.
In addition, I have made separate provision of £70·6 million for forecast receipts from the European regional development fund. To the extent that local authorities are successful in their bids for ERDF grant, they can expect to receive matching supplementary credit approvals additional to those in the local authority capital settlement.
Excluding the ERDF grants that it is estimated local authorities will receive in the present financial year, the expected gross capital expenditure of £620 million in 1993–94 represents an increase of £61 million or 11 per cent. on this year. That is a very generous settlement in this period of exceptionally tight control on public spending and complements the Government's strategy for growth in the economy. The continuing high level of investment in infrastructure in Wales will help to ensure that the ingredients for economic growth are in place.
My proposals include support of £23 million over the next three years for investment in 15 new schemes of special or regional significance. The schemes involved include the regeneration of Pembroke Dock; the introduction of new local rail services between Bridgend and Swansea; a further phase of development at the Redwither industrial estate at Wrexham; new headquarters offices for the Snowdonia national park; a sports and leisure complex at Brecon; and town centre redevelopment in Swansea and Wrexham.
The capital package also includes provision of £66·6 million for transport grant-assisted road schemes. This allows two important schemes to commence in 1993–94—the Tredegar bypass and the A4067 dualling in the Swansea valley. It will also allow Clwyd county council to spend a further £2 million on preparation work for the third Dee crossing. Further assistance for that scheme, which I will announce next year, will permit a start to the main works for the third Dee crossing in 1994–95.
Another key element in the package of support for local authority capital investment is the urban programme, for which today I have approved a package amounting to £28.4 million. Of this, I am allocating £26.4 million to 228 projects, 10 more than in 1992–93. The remaining £2 million will be allocated early in the new year.
The projects include £500,000 for major infrastructure development at Cwmcynon, £300,000 earmarked for regeneration of Tredegar town centre and £500,000 for crime prevention initiatives across Wales. Five new strategies are approved for Caernarfon, Ely, Barry, Amman valley and Coedffranc near Neath. They will receive a total of £2·5 million in 1993–94. The valleys programme area as a whole will benefit from £15·3 million. The 50 most deprived wards in Wales will receive £8.3 million, or 32 per cent. of the total allocation.
Further details of the full capital package and the allocation of resources to individual authorities have been placed in the Library of the House.
The proposals I have set out today will enable local government to maintain services and deliver them to the communities that they serve at a reasonable cost. Local taxpapers can be assured that I am determined to protect them from unreasonable levels of council tax, through recourse to my capping powers if necessary. My proposals also encourage local authorities to invest in capital projects that will improve the infrastructure of Wales, promote economic growth and create jobs. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for delivering his statement. However, I express my firm disapproval of its timing. The Secretary of State knows full well that the Public Accounts Committee is sitting at this precise moment, and is questioning the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. Therefore, three of my colleagues, my right hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) are unable to be here to question the Secretary of State on the financing of their respective local authorities.
Despite the gloss that the Secretary of State puts on the statement, it will mean job losses and cuts in essential services in Wales, and will directly undermine the ability of Welsh local authorities to cope with the tragic consequences of his Government's economic failures. Despite the fact that the statement is supposed to be on the revenue settlement, the Secretary of State took half his allotted time to refer to capital works that he has approved in Wales. He is up to the old tricks of his predecessors—he has rejigged the capital programme and presented it as a new programme.
The detail of what the Secretary of State has done, has three elements. First, he will allow local authorities to borrow money so that they can take advantage of any ERDF grants they get as a result of their own initiative. That is not a Welsh Office programme. Secondly, he is taking credit for allowing local authorities to proceed with schemes that they have developed on their own initiative. Thirdly, he has rejigged the urban programme and presented it as a new programme with increased resources.

If one compares last year's urban programme with this year's urban programme, one sees that he has cut it by 8 per cent.
We have massive problems in Wales which the statement should have addressed, but does not. Let me give two examples. First, at present there are nearly 10,000 homeless families in Wales. For the children of 600 families, Christmas this year will be spent in the back room of bed-and-breakfast accommodation or in a hostel for the homeless. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the statement will do nothing to enable local authorities to tackle that problem?
Secondly, 24 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers in Mid Glamorgan leave school with no qualifications. The Secretary of State is keen on comparative tables for exam results. Let me offer him a comparison. The figure for Mid Glamorgan is the worst in the United Kingdom, and the figure for Gwent is the second worst in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State's response has been to reduce in real terms the money available to those counties by giving a disproportionate share of the budget to further education colleges to sweeten their privatisation. In effect, the Government are stealing £14 million from Welsh local authorities.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that both the Council of Welsh Districts and the Association of Welsh Counties claimed in their submission to him that there was major underfunding of local authorities? They estimated that an increase of some 7·5 per cent. was required over last year's budget to meet inflation and their new statutory responsibilities. Will the Secretary of State explain how an increase of only 0·2 per cent. over the 1992–93 adjusted budgets for revenue expenditure provides resources to deal with the £70 million cost of last year's pay award for police and fire services, let alone the new responsibilities: the new national insurance increases, new pension costs, the Children Act 1989, the national curriculum, waste management and unforeseen emergencies such as the recent flooding, for which the Bellwin formula is entirely outdated?
The Secretary of State has previously announced the headline figures for the new council tax. Will he confirm that those figures are based on the assumption of a 100 per cent. collection rate and that the inflated house valuations on which the tax is based are not subject to widespread successful appeals? Does he accept that the new tax will be just as unfair as the poll tax and just as capricious and arbitrary in its application? Does not the fact that the Secretary of State is so adamant in his determination to press ahead with capping give the lie to his claim that he has developed a consensual relationship with Welsh councils?
This is a black day for democracy in Wales. It demonstrates clearly the clash between the aspirations of Welsh councils, which know and understand the needs of their communities, and those of a Secretary of State who does not share our concerns, is unaccountable and is hostile to our values. The only way in which he can achieve his objectives is by direction. The wishes of the people of Wales are being overridden. More than 90 per cent. of local authority expenditure is now determined by the Secretary of State. Will he accept his full responsibility for the job losses, declining services and hardships that the settlement will create? If he does not accept responsibility for that, the people of Wales will certainly know whom to blame.

Mr. Hunt: First, timing of statements is not a matter for me, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman seeks to drive a wedge between the Welsh Office and local authorities, but he will not succeed. One of the most important features of Wales is that, rather than leaving matters to the initiative of one or the other, the Welsh Office and local authorities work closely together in a positive partnership. That is why I hope very much that I shall not have to use my capping powers. I have not had to do so until now. By announcing the detailed provisional capping criteria, I hope that local authorities will know exactly where they stand and will be able to budget accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to children leaving school without qualifications. We inherited a position which was far worse, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the statistics. We are increasing the opportunities all the time through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. The number of people receiving higher education has increased substantially.
As for further education, I was advised by my officials and I carefully examined the figures and concluded that the appropriate deduction was the figure that I announced. The hon. Gentleman will have to await my decision on funding for further education next year to find out whether the figure that has been transferred is the appropriate one. That announcement will be made in due course. I have met representatives of the relevant counties. They expressed anxieties about the size of the sum to be transferred. However, I believe that it will be justified by the announcement that is to be made in due course.
The settlement is a 3·1 per cent. increase in total standard spending for local authorities, following a 25 per cent. increase over the previous two years. In the present economic circumstances, it is a reasonable settlement, although I recognise that the figure that the hon. Gentleman used was for budgets. I am giving the appropriate figure compared to the figure that I announced this time last year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about collection rates. If he recalls, many dire predictions were made about collection of the community charge. They proved to be incorrect in Wales, because Labour Members underestimated the dedication and industry of all those involved in local government, who ensured that there was full collection. Of course, it is up to local authorities to predict the rate that they will collect, but many parts of Wales achieved 100 per cent. of what they budgeted to collect. Local authorities must make their own decisions on the anticipated collection rate.
As for inflated housing values, all the homes in Wales were valued on the same day. There may have been a fall in values in some parts of Wales, but that will apply to all properties in the area. It is unlikely that a property will move from one band to another. However, there is, of course, an opportunity to appeal.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was a black day for local government. I could hardly describe a record level of gross capital spending in times of economic crisis as a black day. I acknowledge that local authorities in Wales will have to make difficult choices about spending priorities and pursue efficiency savings to stay within my expenditure plans, but I believe that the settlement is realistic in the current economic climate.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for funding 90 per cent. of local authority spending through

aggregate external finance towards total standard spending. At the same time, he says that I am not giving enough money and that I am giving too much. It is about time that he got the message right.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed further, I regret the need to inform the House that what we originally heard from the Secretary of State was a statement. This is not a debate. It is a statement following which questions must be asked. I want to call as many Members as possible, but I can do that only if questions are brief. I am sure that we shall receive brief answers from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement, which is clear and well thought through. It must have been gratifying for him to be described by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—[interruption]—as up to the old tricks of his predecessor, who secured a firm—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members have asked questions today. I expect a question from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed on two counts? First, it will be welcomed in my constituency in Clwyd for the urban programme funds which my right hon. Friend has announced for Rhyl, Rhos-on-Sea and Rhuddlan.
Secondly, the announcement of an additional £500,000 for crime prevention, which causes some anxiety in Wales, will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who recognises the significance of today's announcement. We have been able to support many projects throughout Wales in partnership with the relevant local authorities. That is good news for all of Wales and in particular for north Wales, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Alex Carlile: For those who are not public finance accountants, will the Secretary of State confirm that the bell now tolls for small rural schools, many of which are excellent but have fewer than 50 pupils, especially as a result of the increase in the lower limit of pupils for the small schools allowance?
Although the £500,000 for crime prevention is welcome, as is any money for such initiatives, is it not pretty hollow when one sets it alongside the Home Secretary's refusal to allow any police force in Wales a single extra police constable in the next financial year?

Mr. Hunt: It is for the local education authorities to allocate the funding for small rural schools. However, such schools have opportunities to ensure that they can survive these difficult economic times by, for example, forming clusters.
I welcome what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about crime prevention schemes. Any money that I have allocated today is over and above what has already been announced by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: On transport grant, why is it that, in Wales, local authorities and claimants for local safety schemes cannot get a grant for traffic-calming measures unless the project costs more than £5 million? In England, one can get grants for schemes costing much less


than that. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter to find out whether we can take traffic-calming measures to reduce the number of deaths and the serious injuries on Welsh roads?

Mr. Hunt: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the £5 million cut-off has been agreed with local authorities. It is for them to advise me whether they would like the limit to be reviewed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will pursue with the local authorities his concerns and their advice to me, but in the meantime I shall consider the matter.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his references to the River Dee crossing. Bearing in mind the fact that there is almost total traffic chaos in industrial Deeside, when will the project be completed—indeed, when will engineering work begin—and what will be the cost? Does the statement mean that Llay Park primary school and Penylag large school will be rebuilt and that Hope high school will be extended?

Mr. Hunt: That was quite a package of questions.

Madam Speaker: Just answer two.

Mr. Hunt: Very well. I shall announce detailed funding of the third Dee crossing next year, but in the meantime I have allocated £2 million to Clwyd county council for further preparatory work. As I know the area well, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about congestion. The schools are a matter for the local authorities concerned.

Dr. John Marek: Since the Minister said that a high level of investment is continuing in Wales, will he explain to the House why there are more potholes in the roads than there were under Labour, why InterCity services to north Wales are at their lowest level ever—a lot lower than under Labour—and, most important, why no council houses are being built? If no council houses are being built, that must be the lowest possible figure. Why are the Government doing so badly, yet the right hon. Gentleman pretends at the Dispatch Box that the figures are fantastic? Does he realise that the people were not born yesterday and that they proved that by not voting for him or his party in Wales at the last general election?

Mr. Hunt: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not queried any of the gross figures that I announced. They stand up to close consideration because they are true. That is the level of gross spending next year and it is a record. In gross terms, there has never been such a large capital programme in Wales before. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to pay tribute to that. I do not mind if he attacks his local authority through me, but the potholes are a matter for the authority. Under this Government, there has been record spending on roads in Wales, and we are continuing those record levels.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is there nothing in the statement to tackle the most serious threat to jobs in Wales—the threat caused by the changes in the defence industry? Jobs have already been lost at Trecwn, Brawdy and Caerwent, at Marconi in Newport and at Glascoed. If the Government are not prepared to set up a

diversification agency, why does the Secretary of State not allow Welsh local authorities to take serious practical steps to find alternatives to present defence jobs in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: If the Opposition spent less time attacking the Welsh Development Agency, which I am very proud of—I have paid tribute to it on many occasions and it is the envy of many people in the United Kingdom—they would realise that it is a good diversification agency and that it is constantly looking out for opportunities for new investment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the many announcements on new projects that I have been privileged to make in conjunction with local authorities and the WDA. I am delighted that Wales is winning record inward investment. I shall endeavour to ensure that we continue to do so. Am I wrong to look for a little more support from the Opposition?

Mr. Elfyn Lwyd: While I welcome the initiatives that the Secretary of State referred to in Caernarfon, Ely, Barry and so forth, may I remind him of the terrible state of the A470 in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy? He was there in August. What priority, if any, will be given to that much-needed scheme? Secondly, it is the view of both borough councils in my constituencies that the capping proposals come at the wrong time, bearing in mind the fact that for some years there has been a great deal of belt tightening.
The Secretary of State is careful to say that he wants to prevent unreasonable levels of council tax. I regret that one must reach the inevitable conclusion that a bad level of services will be offered to the community, at a time when extra spending is necessary as care in the community is on the horizon. Will he rethink the whole matter? I heard him say that he is open to representation, but when local authorities make representations they feel that they are not listened to by the Welsh Office.

Mr. Hunt: Again, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman asked a large number of questions, but I shall try to deal with a few of them. I announced local authority expenditure on roads today. I have not announced the Welsh Office programme; that announcement will come later. May I therefore place in context the hon. Gentleman's remarks? On finance, my announcement represents expenditure per head in Wales for 1993–94 of £901 for every man, woman and child in Wales. According to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), at 90 per cent. I am funding too high a level of support as, for spending of £901, I am providing aggregate external finance of £812 for every man, woman and child in Wales. From whatever direction the figures are viewed, they represent a reasonable deal for the people of Wales.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that our local authorities play a major part in attracting new industries to their areas, and that that has been the case in Newport and Gwent in particular? Does he not feel that those efforts need to be stepped up, especially in view of the major Marconi closure in Newport? Yet, under his proposals, our local authority is faced with no growth. How can the borough council be expected to regenerate the town with such a limitation?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's first point echoes the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I announced gross funding for the industry


programme. I recognise the significant role played by local authorities, in particular in winning the QPL investment, which was the good result of a positive partnership with Newport borough council. I recognise that and constantly pay tribute to it, although hon. Gentlemen sometimes pretend that I do not. I take every opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of Gwent county council and Newport borough council in winning investment, and, of course, I want that to continue.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman referred to schemes of regional significance. May I draw his attention to two schemes of considerable significance to the heads of the valleys? The first is the beginning of a dual carriageway over the heads of the valleys, and the second is the beginning of the missing link in the A465. Both schemes have considerable regional signfiicance and would secure vitally important jobs at both Vaynor and Penderyn quarries. Can he make an announcement as quickly as possible on the start of both schemes?

Mr. Hunt: As I made clear to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I am not announcing Welsh Office schemes today. That announcement will come. Today I announced transport grant-supported schemes. I shall bear in mind the matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I ask him to understand that there has been record spending by the Welsh Office on roads, and it is not always possible to give priority to schemes favoured by individual Members.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that European funding was set in April at 1·43 ecu to the pound and is now 1·24 ecu to the pound, which means that the Government received a windfall of some 17 per cent., amounting to £260,000 in social fund spending in Clwyd alone. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will allow Clwyd to spend some of that money, or will it be used merely to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement for the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman's direct question, I have made provision of £70·6 million, which is my forecast of the receipts likely to be forthcoming this financial year from the European regional development fund. However, it is now up to local authorities to put forward schemes —some have already done so—and see whether they are successful in their bids for ERDF grants. I have made it clear that they can expect to receive matching supplementary credit approvals in addition to those that I have announced in the local authority capital settlement.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his figure for total standard spending next year is a 3·1 per cent. increase on the TSS last year, but that local authorities spent 2·5 per cent. above their TSS figure this year? That 3 per cent. increase is, therefore, nowhere near enough for local authorities simply to maintain existing services. Does it not mean that they will have to make cuts or find their money from poll tax payers?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I confirm the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman, but that increase has been made against a

difficult economic background. An increase in TSS of 3·1 per cent. is reasonable, bearing in mind that the figure has gone up by 25 per cent. in the past two years.

Mr. Peter Hain: Why does not the Secretary of State admit that, through his underfunding and cutting, he is instructing West Glamorgan county council, Clwyd borough council and Neath borough council to cut services, school provision and jobs? I am disappointed that he has made no announcement about the future of Cwmtawe school, which is a crucial project dependent on Welsh Office capital funding. I am also disappointed that he has not announced when he will proceed with the A465 missing link construction.

Mr. Hunt: On the A465 construction, I thought that I had made it sufficiently clear earlier that we are dealing today with local authority transport grant-supported schemes, not Welsh Office road schemes.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that, irrespective of his feeling that he has a positive partnership with local government in Wales, the county councils are extremely angry with the formula that he has devised for transferring further education colleges to the independent sector? Will he confirm that that formula is based on assumed rather than actual expenditure and that, in the case of Dyfed county council, it will cost the general education budget £2 million? Will he also explain why, although he has a task force in place in west Wales, he has announced no specific capital allocation for Preseli Pembrokeshire district council?

Mr. Hunt: Again, the hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. On his first point about the further education allocation, I had to make a decision with the best advice available to me on the appropriate transfer of funds to meet the needs of further education colleges. I am not sure whether he has consulted the further education colleges—he may have consulted only local authorities—but I do not believe that the further education colleges regard that amount as sufficient. I must now consider adding to that figure to allocate proper resources for further education next year.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In welcoming the Secretary of State's statement about the new strategy, which includes Caernarfon and four other locations, I notice that the total sum earmarked is £2.5 million. Does he recall that, when he visited Caernarfon a few weeks ago there was talk of a package of £8 million for regenerating Caernarfon? Will he assure me that there has been no slippage from that and that the other moneys will arise from other programmes or be made available in the subsequent financial year?

Mr. Hunt: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the detail of my announcement which is only part of the package for regenerating Caernarfon. Other partners are making contributions. However, I shall look into the point that he raises.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he visited my constituency just a week or so ago, he witnessed the fact that our bus service, bus depot and shopping complex had gone into receivership and that there was bad housing, record unemployment, low wages and under-investment in education? Although we welcome investment in the


Tredegar bypass road and congratulate the local authorities and action committee on their support, does he accept that all the other measures that he mentioned are utterly irrelevant to the unemployed, those in bad housing and those suffering many other forms of deprivation?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman was with me in Tredegar when we were presented with a regeneration strategy, which has only just arrived at the Welsh Office. I regard today's announcement as demonstrating that the Tredegar bypass is high on the list of Welsh Office priorities, as it was on Gwent county council's list of priorities. I hope that the £300,000 for the regeneration of Tredegar will be regarded by everyone in Tredegar as a down payment showing our good will, because those are the properly costed schemes that have been put to us so far. We shall now respond to the strategy that has just been received and shall consider it in consultation with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State's statement will be viewed with great dismay in the valley communities, because no substantial money is being made available for council and ordinary house repair and improvement grants. At the beginning of the 1980s, the Government poured a lot of money into those grants and it made a substantial difference to our communities. Unless they embark on a repair and improvement grant system to that extent, houses in the valleys will decay yet again.

Mr. Hunt: The sums that I have announced for home renovation grants are extremely sizeable. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made earlier about the allocation being made to the valleys. Although the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) tried to portray the urban programme as a cut, failing to take account of the special consideration of the national garden festival at Ebbw Vale and some other considerations, I ask the House to consider the package as a whole and recognise that it represents record gross spending in Wales. It is about time that the Labour party paid tribute to that. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has done so, he will acknowledge that several Opposition Members have not been as generous in their praise. I hope that he has set an example. I remind the House that we are dealing with record capital growth spending in Wales and I am delighted to have been able to announce that today.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Despite everything that the Secretary of State says about the amount of Government support for local authorities in Wales,

because of the dispute over further education and the money already committed for the police and the fire service, little extra money will flow from local government coffers in Wales to support the services they provide. Will the Secretary of State make a special effort this year to look into the money being spent by local authorities to provide conversions or new central heating for old age pensioners and to provide money for disabled people who need their houses adapted? In many parts of Wales, the time that pensioners and disabled people must wait for those conversions to be undertaken is scandalous. I hope that he will look into the matter and provide extra money if the need for it can be shown.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the substantial additional funds that I have put into the programme during the three-year period that I announced last year. It is a matter for local authorities, but I will check on the issue that he raised. However, he should see the matter against the background of the greatly increased level of funding.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State recall that only two hours ago he was praising local authorities in Wales and talking of co-operation? How is it that he is now introducing for the first time in Wales the most detailed and draconian capping criteria, which must severely restrict council spending? Does he not realise that the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of Welsh men and women will be profoundly affected by the revenue settlement and capping criteria? Is it not ironic that, while the Secretary of State's appointed quangos can apparently spend as they wish, our democratically elected councils have to cut, cut and cut? Is that not a case of double standards?

Mr. Hunt: No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise that we are talking against a background of an increase in total standard spending over the previous two years of 25 per cent. and, in addition, I am allocating 3·1 per cent. I thought that I had made it clear earlier that I regard the settlement as being difficult for local authorities, just as the overall settlement is difficult for central Government. However, I believe that it strikes the right balance. I repeat that the £2,599·8 million is a substantial settlement, which represents £901 of spending next year by local authorities for every man, woman and child, towards which central Government will be funding, through aggregate external finance, £812. I believe, when the hon. Gentleman examines the figures, he will see that they are reasonable, bearing in mind the present economic background.

Points of Order

Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a genuine point of order—

Madam Speaker: I only hear genuine points of order.

Mr. Davies: This is a particularly genuine point of order —as you would expect, Madam Speaker. I understand that Ministers make statements on the basis of permission granted from the Chair. I wonder whether you would be prepared to consider expressing to Ministers your reluctance to grant such permission for non-emergency statements that are made on Fridays, such as the significant statement on arts funding which was made to a limited House last Friday? It caught many of us entirely unawares, despite the fact that the statement's gestation period was almost as long as that of an elephant; it was certainly not an emergency statement. For those of us who had important constituency commitments—I was travelling north to meet—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with the point of order.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the phrase "with permission" used by Ministers is simply a matter of courtesy. The Minister involved certainly does not need the permission of the Speaker of the House and can make statements to the House at the appropriate time—3.30 pm or 11 am on Fridays. It has nothing to do with the Speaker or the Office of Speaker. I hope that that makes it clear to hon. Members in the Chamber and those who may not be present.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are rising to speak and you come to the conclusion that it is not possible to continue with the exchanges due to other pressing parliamentary business, do you keep some sort of list of those who are not called so that they may have an opportunity to catch your eye during the following exchanges? I seem to be particularly unlucky.

Madam Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has always been unlucky, but I know full well that he was unlucky today. I assure hon. Members that I keep a full list of those who are not called, not only on what might be called important statements, but on all statements.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. It was widely reported in the press in Wales this weekend that the long-awaited Welsh Language Bill, which the Government have been studying for the past six years and promised in the Queen's Speech, is to have its First Reading—after which it is printed—on Thursday.
It is extremely inconvenient for the House, and raises questions about the Government's motives, for the Bill to be introduced on the last day of the parliamentary Session so that it will be available in the Vote Office in printed form only after hon. Members have returned to their constituencies. That cuts across the opportunities to

discuss the contents of such legislation, and, given the inordinately long period that the Government took to get the Bill that far, appears to be an abuse of the House.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, as it involves no breach of Standing Orders or procedures. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You have often deprecated the practice whereby Ministers make important statements behind the curtain of written questions. That happened on Thursday, when an important statement was made stating that £20 million had been cut from the budget of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for farmers, with great consequences for farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is the sort of statement that should be made on the Floor of the House so that the Minister can be challenged from all sides on the nature of that drastic cut. Have you had a request for a statement today?

Madam Speaker: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. Let me make it absolutely clear that I have never deprecated the fact that the Government issue statements in the form of answers to written questions. That has always been the procedure in the House, whatever the complexion of the Government. I deprecate the practice of a Government making a statement outside the House to organisations outside the House before doing so in the Chamber.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to that point of order. I answered the hon. Gentleman's last question and clearly dealt with the procedures on written questions and statements made outside the House.

BILL PRESENTED

COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN

Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to establish a democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Wales dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens; to establish fundamental human rights within that Commonwealth; to lower the voting age to 16 years and to make other provision with respect to elections, including equal representation for women; to prescribe a constitutional oath; to establish a Commonwealth Parliament consisting of the House of Commons and the House of the People and to make provision for the term of a Parliament and for legislative and other procedure; to establish the office of President, and a Council of State, and to prescribe the powers of each; to provide for the formation of governments; to amend the law relating to official information, the armed forces and the security services; to make fresh provision for the participation of Britain in the United Nations Organisation and the European Communities; to make the basing of foreign forces in Britain dependent upon the approval of the House of Commons; to make new provision with respect to the judicial system and to establish a National Legal Service; to set up national Parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales; to amend the law relating to local government, the district auditor


and the accountability of police forces; to end the constitutional status of the Crown and to make certain consequential provision; to abolish the House of Lords and the Privy Council, to end the recognition in law of personal titles, and to provide for the acknowledgement of service to the community; to disestablish the Church of England, abolish the offence of blasphemy, and to provide for equality under the law for all religions and beliefs; to end British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland; to provide for a Constitution and for constitutional amendment; and to make transitional and related provision: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January; and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

SAVINGS BANKS

That the National Savings Bank (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2892) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday, 17th December, do adjourn until Monday 11th January.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me at the beginning of the debate.
In 22 years in the House, I have never before felt genuinely angry about the House adjourning, but today I do. It is appalling that the House should adjourn this week without devoting a full day to debating the terrible situation in the Balkans. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House well knows, I have asked him on successive Thursdays to change the business of the House so that we can have a debate on the Adjournment to discuss the position in Bosnia. He has politely but firmly refused, and on two or three occasions he has urged me to use the opportunity presented by the Christmas Adjournment and I am grateful to Madam Speaker for calling me now. I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend and am glad to count him as a genuine right hon. Friend, but I do not think that it is good enough.
The most appalling atrocities since those of the second world war are being committed in the heart of our continent. The crisis—it is no less than that—in the Balkans, presents the world with its greatest post-war crisis. Unless firm action is taken in the next three or four weeks, we could be moving towards a European Armageddon—and so far, such action has not been taken. We could find ourselves with a full-scale Balkan war involving not only Bosnia but Kosovo and Macedonia, and erupting to such a degree that Bulgaria and Albania would be drawn in—not to mention Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, with all the ghastly implications of that.
In a moment, I should like to spell out some of the possible consequences of such a holocaust. Last week I had the privilege of taking part in the launch of a new venture, Action for Bosnia, embracing all political parties. I was delighted to see the right hon. Michael Foot there. All political parties and all shades of religious opinion were brought together by a common horror at the atrocities and a common concern for what might follow. Later that day, I had the privilege of receiving in my room here two Bosnian Members of Parliament, one a Serb and the other a Muslim. Although of different political persuasions, they were united in their grief and in their pleas that something be done.
Later that day, one of these Bosnian Members of Parliament, Professor Filipovic, sent me a fax from Geneva, where he is taking part in the talks. He was a professor of philosophy at the university of Sarajevo. I have never met a more cultivated, gentle, widely read or deeply compassionate man. If he sat in this House, we would all be proud to call him a colleague.
Professor Filpovic sent me a fax with details of the casualties up to 23 November—some three weeks ago. Between the beginning of May and 23 November—the figures have not been disputed—128,000 people were killed in Bosnia: 59,000 of them by arms and explosions, 10,000 by cutting tools and sharp weapons, 2,500 by


drowning and 30,000 by unidentified objects. It is a grisly and ghastly catalogue—a catalogue which is an indictment of those of us who have stood by while it has grown.
On Friday, I abandoned my constituency engagements and went up to Edinburgh to take part in a conference deliberately organised to coincide with the summit. The first day of the conference was given over to the delivery of papers by academics from Europe and the United States—papers in which the rich cultural history and heritage of Bosnia were movingly and graphically described.
On Saturday, we concentrated on the politics. I contacted the Foreign Office to ask that a Foreign Office Minister meet the Bosnian Foreign Minister who had come over specially for the conference. I pay tribute and am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who left Holyrood house and the summit, came to our conference and spent almost an hour with the Bosnian Foreign Minister and me discussing the problems. I am also grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making the meeting possible.
As a privileged participant in the discussions between two Foreign Ministers, I cannot possibly repeat what was said between them. What I can say is what Mr. Silajdzic told me and told the conference later that afternoon. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) in his place, because he too was a participant in the conference, as was the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).
The Bosnian Foreign Minister said a number of things which I believe we all need to take carefully into account. First, he made it plain that this is not a civil war—a point that many of us have made in the past. This is a war in an ancient country with ancient borders; a country that has in the past been a shining example of what a multi-ethnic, multicultural country should be. Christians of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic persuasions and Muslims have lived happily side by side, intermarrying and weaving a rich tapestry of civilisation in that part of Europe.
As Mr. Silajdzik said, this is not really a war at all. A war implies a conflict or contest between two parties who go to war for particular reasons. This is not war: it is a slaughter of an innocent population, in the numbers to which I have referred, with all sorts of attendant atrocities. The phrase "ethnic cleansing" ought to make the flesh of every hon. Member creep. The things that are being done to enforce ethnic cleansing are barbaric beyond belief.
As Mr. Silajdzic told me, there can be no worse crime than the killing of a child—but there can be: the killing of a child following its torture. There can be no worse crime against a woman than rape—but there can be, he said: it is when those women are put into rape camps. In one motel—there may be more—in Bosnia, young girls and women are taken and ravished by soldiers and others and then killed. One man has publicly admitted to killing 200 of them in this manner.
This is what is going on as we debate our Christmas Adjournment. Winter is gripping Bosnia; it is a real winter there, not the sort of white Christmas for which we might fondly hope, but a winter when the temperatures can sink to 32 below, and beyond. In Sarajevo last week, there were five days without electricity or water. I have arranged for Mr. Silajdzik to come and address hon. Members in a Committee Room two days after we return. I hope that Members will come and listen to him—if he is still alive, because he is going home during the Christmas recess.
Mr. Silajdzik is also a highly civilised, cultured man. Although Bosnia is a small country, it has people of great quality. I was enormously impressed by the quality of its Foreign Minister—a professor of history, a man who had devoted his life to scholarly pursuits before serving what he thought would be a newly independent nation. He spoke graphically and chilllingly of what was happening to his country.
What struck me most was that his concern was not just for Bosnia. He said that he had been accused the previous day by a Foreign Office official—not, I hasten to add, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who could not have been more concerned—of being emotional. Who would not be emotional, given the circumstances? Despite the emotion, the Foreign Minister was concerned about the wider issue and the wider view.
He told me, as he told the conference later, that, if the Balkans erupt into full-scale war, he was fearful of two consequences above all. The first—I totally agree—is that the spectre of Muslim fundamentalism or extremism would rear its head. Mujaheddin are already fighting in Bosnia—not because they were invited, but because they went there. The leaders of the Arab world met in Riyadh 10 days ago. They told the international community that something must be done by 15 January, or else—that, from the responsible leaders of the Arab world.
Behind them are those whose representatives howled me down in Trafalgar square in August when they called for a jihad—a holy war. Just imagine what would happen —this is not impossible—if Muslim extremists took power in the key nations of the Arab world and in Turkey. Could there be a greater destabilising of our world? That prospect should make us all pause.
The second consequence that concerned Mr. Silajdzic and which concerns me is that the validity of the world order—the United Nations itself—is on trial. If we fail to deal with what is happening, what example is that to those who would foment trouble in other newly emerging countries? You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I do, that, in parts of the former Soviet Union, peace is fragile and brittle, and in other parts it has already been broken—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. What is happening in Kazakhstan—a nuclear power?
If we do not exert some real world leadership through the United Nations, what sort of signals will we send? This is a terrible crisis, and I infinitely regret that we have not done more already. I urged for many months—in fact, for a year—that we should do more. I repeat my belief that, had we taken firmer action when Dubrovnik and Bukovar were bombed and shelled, the Bosnian atrocities might never have happened.
We have not only failed to exert any force but said that we would not do so. We ruled out the doctrine of the deterrent. That was a serious mistake. We must do something now. If we do not, we could all be parties to a great crime. Edmund Burke, one of the greatest orators ever to command the House, said:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I do not suggest for a moment that the good men who sit on both Front Benches—and they do—have done nothing. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have done nothing. But what they have tried to do was not enough, and was not successful.
The sanctions have not worked. The shuttle diplomacy has not worked. The killing has continued, is continuing, and will continue. There is no point in dismissing the situation and saying, "It's too difficult." There will be risks whatever we do, and there are certainly risks in doing nothing. I do not pretend that surgical air strikes are necessarily easy—although precision bombing seemed to work in Iraq. I do not pretend that, if we put more troops on the ground, the terrain will be easy—although I have never advocated massive ground involvement.
I feel rather ashamed of my country when the faint-hearted view seems to prevail that, because a certain number of German divisions were required to keep the population down during the past world war, we should be reluctant now. That has been proved to be something of a myth. There were not a great number of divisions, and those that were there, were for the most part, "Dad's Army" divisions—reserves.
I believe that this crisis is of the gravest magnitude and that the House should have been given a full day to debate it. The Government should have gone forth, reinforced by a mandate from the House—as they did at the time of the Falklands war, which was another rather tricky operation —and tabled resolutions at the United Nations.
I am glad that the communiqué issued at Edinburgh on Saturday was much tougher and less ambiguous and equivocal than previous communiqués. We now need action and the United Nations should be activated quickly. The air exclusion zone must be enforced, and the killing of innocent civilians stopped. I want proper peace and prosperity throughout the whole of the former Yugoslavia. I am not anti-Serb as such, although I am very much anti the aggressive dictator who rules in Belgrade currently, and what many of his henchmen have done. I am glad that Saturday's communiqué was unequivocal in its condemnation of them.
If the House is to adjourn without debating Bosnia, let the message go to the Government that we expect no rest during the recess that will take Ministers away from seeking to play a part in solving that great problem. If the House returns and nothing is done by 15 January, if the Arab world decides to take this one on itself and outside the umbrella of the United Nations, we will have begun to go down a very slippery slope.
It is an urgent matter. I know that I have gone on about it at some length, and that I have raised it many times in the House. I hope that my colleagues will forgive me, but I feel deeply about the matter—so deeply that I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Government cannot be sure of my vote on anything if something is not done about Bosnia.

Mr. Alfred Morris: We have heard a moving and persuasive speech by the hon. Member for Stafffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on a grave crisis of universal concern. For my part, I want briefly to raise three urgent and highly important issues about which, demonstrably, there ought to be at least oral ministerial statements before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
The first is that of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema in

coal miners and metal production workers. The IIAC report recommends, on page 7, that both conditions should be prescribed as industrial injuries in relation to current and past miners who have worked underground. The need for a definitive statement of the Government's position is made all the more urgent by the high death rate among miners whose work has led to serious respiratory illnesses which, as the Lord President knows, often leave their victims struggling to breathe.
The right hon. Gentleman is also aware of a leaked internal memorandum to the President of the Board of Trade, in which it was pointed out that, because of the high death rate among miners with chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the longer the Government delay the less they pay. That appalling cynicism deeply shocked public opinion. Given that the report went to the Government as long ago as 17 August, surely it is high time now for a clear statement of their response.
The second issue that I want to raise is the smallness and lack of clarity of the monetary figures and words on the new Bank of England notes, the E series, and the similarity of the print colours used for the £10 and £20 notes. It is widely reported that that lack of clarity has caused distress to cashiers and shoppers alike, more especially to large numbers of people with impaired eyesight. Lord Henley, a Treasury spokesman in another place, was told there on 5 November that, if he ever stood at the head of a long queue in a supermarket and said that he must spend time trying closely to examine bank notes, he would be "howled down".
That was put to Lord Henley by my good friend Lady Llewellyn-Davies, in response to his statement that the new bank notes had been deliberately printed with figures that were hard to read to encourage people to examine them closely and thus combat forgery. Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who formerly chaired the National Consumer Council, was not amused. She told Lord Henley:
Most people do not have the time to give a minute examination to every note when passing them during the day";
while Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, a former Chancellor, said that it was
totally out of proportion that the possibility of forgery should take precedence over whether notes are easily identifiable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 1992]
It is now clearly important that the Bank of England should be asked urgently to pay due attention to the widespread and increasing criticism of the new series—not least among people with visual impairments—and that a Treasury Minister should respond to public concern in a statement to the House. The other place has been able to debate the issue, and it must be right for this House at least to be able to question a Minister.
My third issue concerns the future of the independent living fund, whose help for very severely disabled people can mean all the difference between their living independently in their own homes and being shut away in long-stay institutions, almost certainly at far higher cost to the taxpayer than that of an adequate ILF grant. The Alzheimer's Disease Society, in which I take pride in holding honorary office, says:
The sudden announcement that the Fund would stop receiving applications after 25 November was a major shock".
The gap between closure of the fund and the launching successor body will, says the society,
entail great hardship for prospective applicants who contact us daily about the demands of caring for a person with Alzheimer's disease".
The society wants clarification in regard to people over working age. We know that the successor body will not accept such people: that much is already clear, and it is seen as discrimination against elderly people of high dependency. Will people accepted by the new agency continue to receive help when they are above working age? Will the definition of "working age" be the same for men and women that is, between 16 and 65?
What is to happen in cases where the ILF is asked to help between now and April 1993? Delays in the Benefits Agency's processing of claims for the higher rates of disability living allowance and attendance allowance have effectively disqualified many people claiming from the ILF. How is it proposed to help those victims of the Government's own failure? Again, what procedures are there for consulting carers and their voluntary groups about the new arrangements?
As Ministers know, the Spinal Injuries Association is very anxious for local authorities to be given powers to make direct payments to severely disabled people to make their own arrangements for personal assistance. Such payments give them choice and control over their own lives; at the same time, good-quality services are provided with minimal bureaucracy, thus giving value for money. Will the local authorities that now make direct payments to severely disabled people be allowed to continue doing so? Direct payments provide all that the Government claim they want to see from their community care policy; so why are Ministers opposing the call for statutory powers to enable local authorities to make such payments to severely disabled people?
While welcoming the Government's acceptance that the successor body must be one that will make direct payments to individual disabled people, Peter Large, than whom no one has more experience of the ILF's work, states that lack of information about it leaves severely disabled people
seriously worried about their futures".
Will the successor body be run by the same staff as those who now run the ILF?
The fund now makes awards averaging £105 a week to more than 18,000 severely disabled people. The budget for 1992–93 is £97 million. It is understood that the budget next year—1993–94—for carrying the existing ILF's case load will be £117 million. Given the current backlog of 6,500 applications, will £117 million be sufficient to ensure that any existing beneficiary whose condition deteriorates, or whose costs increase, will be able to receive increased payments to cover the increased costs from the successor body to the ILF?
What will happen if the £117 million is insufficient? Will beneficiaries whose costs increase have to wait for other beneficiaries to die in order to secure increased payments from the fund to cover their higher costs? By any standards, that would be a total scandal.
I understand from a parliamentary reply given on 2 December that the budget for the successor body is only £4 million. Can this be correct? How will severely disabled people secure payments from the new agency, and how many will it help? Will anyone be able to insist that a local authority makes a contribution? After April 1993, when a local authority assesses a person's ability to pay for personal assistance, will the mobility allowance, the DLA care component and the severe disability allowance be

taken into account? Will the money given to local authorities in consequence of the changes to the ILF be specially earmarked for the purpose of financing independent living, as it would have been by the ILF?
This issue, and the questions I have posed, are of considerable importance to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I implore the Lord President not to leave the severely disabled people on whose behalf I appeal to him still worrying about their futures when the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this important Christmas Adjournment debate.
I wish to direct my remarks to recent developments in Macclesfield health authority. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her place. She certainly has an interest in what I am about to say because her health authority is also involved. I know of her interest because she has signed one of the early-day motions that I have tabled, and I know that she strongly supports the sentiments that I have expressed on behalf of the people of Macclesfield about the unfortunate developments that are being initiated by the chairman of the regional health authority, Sir Donald Wilson.
In July, Sir Donald Wilson gave me a firm assurance, in the presence of the then chairman of the Macclesfield health authority, Mr. Peter Hayes—who has now taken over as chairman of the East Cheshire NHS trust—that there would be no merger of the Macclesfield and Crewe health authorities unless the communities and the two authorities were in favour of such a step.
I took that assurance at face value. What has happened subsequently? Sir Donald Wilson is well known to me and to those who come from Merseyside. He is a man who always has a hidden agenda and who will never share it with those who represent the people of the area. He is determined, come hell or high water, to get his way, riding roughshod over the people of the area, their health provision and health services.
I suspect that, because I no longer serve on the Select Committee on Health, Sir Donald has felt it appropriate to strike. Macclesfield has a wealth of talent—numerous able business people who for many years have given immense service to the national health service in a voluntary or other capacity. But in recent times, Sir Donald has brought in from outside the health authority area a chairman—County Councillor Simon Cussons—who, quite by chance, happens to be the leader of the Conservative group on Cheshire county council.
Mr. Cussons has no connection at all with Macclesfield, except that, for a relatively short period, he was chairman of the family health services authority for the whole of Cheshire, which clearly involves my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
Sir Donald had appointed by the Government a man who has no knowledge or experience of Macclesfield, and the method of that appointment left much to be desired. I was not advised of the appointment until some days after it had taken place. I may say that I regard it as most discourteous not to notify the hon. Member concerned of


those who are to be appointed until some days after the appointment has been made. I say that not least because the House knows of my considerable interest in health matters. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—if not the Minister—knows of my deep involvement in health provision and care in my constituency throughout my 21 years as Member of Parliament for Macclesfield.
I repeat that the method of Mr. Cusson's appointment left a great deal to be desired. The acting chairman of the health authority, Mrs. Morven Sowerbutts, who has given many years of devoted and committed service to Macclesfield, was unseated without even being notified of the fact. She arrived to chair a selection panel to select the chief executive of the authority, only to be told that a new chairman had been appointed. Without any knowledge of the area, Mr. Cussons immediately decided to chair the meeting, even though Mrs. Morven Sowerbutts had been with the authority for many years, had studied all the papers, and was fully prepared to take the meeting and would have done an excellent job.
As I said, I have tabled an early-day motion expressing my concern about the appointment of Mr. Cussons. I emphasise that I have no argument with Mr. Cussons himself. I merely feel that he has been used by Sir Donald Wilson to deprive Macclesfield of the opportunity to have a chairman who can stand up for the interests of the area and its people.
I am supported in the views that I have expressed by the Secretary of State herself, who has admitted that the way in which Mrs. Morven Sowerbutts was treated was thoroughly unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend wrote to me:
Turning to the way in which Mrs. Sowerbutts was informed of the appointment of Mr. Cussons as chairman of Macclesfield HA, I can only agree that someone who has given such excellent service to the NHS deserved better.
She did indeed deserve better. I am concerned that Mrs. Sowerbutts should continue to serve on the health authority, although she will clearly have to review her position in the light of the treatment that she has received.
That is not the worst of the matter. We now come to the appointment of Mrs. Chris Hannah as chief executive of the health authority, the circumstances of which are extremely interesting. Before Mrs. Hannah was appointed chief executive of Macclesfield health authority, she happened to be the personnel manager of the Mersey regional health authority—one of Sir Donald Wilson's chosen people. Did she get the job in a way that was fair and above board? Oh no, she did not. She was responsible for advertising the position of chief executive of Macclesfield health authority. She was the one to whom applications came. Having sorted them, she no doubt handed them to Mr. Geoffrey Scaife, the regional general manager, another hatchet man for Sir Donald Wilson—who, interestingly, believed that the number of applications to be considered by Macclesfield health authority was less than adequate, and that their quality was rather weak.
What did Mr. Scaife do? He went to the personnel manager, Mrs. Chris Hannah, and said, "Wouldn't you like to put your name forward for the position?" The day before the interviews were to take place in Macclesfield,

Mrs. Chris Hannah's name was put on the list. Again, I am supported in my concern by the Secretary of State, who said in her letter to me:
I appreciate why the circumstances of the appointment led you to raise this matter. Adding Mrs. Hannah's name to the shortlist the day before the interview, after she had been involved in the shortlisting for the post, was bound to lead to questions about the fairness of the … exercise.
Does the House think that what happened should have been tolerated? My right hon. Friend's letter dated 7 December accepts that best practice was not followed and that the appointment had the appearance of being unfair. I would go further: it had the appearance of being corrupt, politically opportunistic and profoundly unethical.
But I have not finished. Who is Mrs. Chris Hannah? She happens to be the daughter-in-law of Mr. Dan Hannah, the chairman of Warrington health authority, and not only that but the daughter-in-law of Mr. Dan Hannah who was appointed by Sir Donald Wilson as the chairman of the Wirral and Cheshire purchasing agency with which Macclesfield will be doing business. The health authority is now the purchasing unit—the purchaser—so it will be doing business with the Wirral and Cheshire purchasing agency. There clearly must be a definite conflict of interest there.
The interests of the national health service and the people of Macclesfield have been subordinated by those Machiavellian developments to the career ambitions of self-serving administrators and a dictatorial and domineering regional authority chairman whose time, I believe, is up. His sell-by date has passed. He is now 71. He has been in the position for 11 years. He is riding roughshod over the people of my area, and is no longer serving the health needs of the area. If anything, he is working against the best interests of the reforms of the health service in Mersey, and particularly in my authority. Despite what he said to me in July and subsequently, he has a dogmatic desire to merge, amalgamate and otherwise to neuter any health authority that is run, as Macclesfield has been for so long, by local people with a commitment to and a real interest in the local community.
To say a little more about the hidden agenda, Sir Donald Wilson gave me the assurance in July that there would be no merger, but the position of chief executive is not, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich knows—if she wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way—as the chief executive of the Macclesfield health authority; it is a joint appointment. It is the chief executive of Macclesfield and Crewe, as a result of which the authorities are building for the merger which Sir Donald has told me will not take place unless the communities and the health authorities want it. If he can take over the health authority and annex it with his own placemen and placewomen, he will at least be able to carry the health authority with him, but he will not carry the community.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is that not a continuing pattern? Has not Sir Donald done that before? In fact, is it not the habit that people actually set up trusts and then themselves take over the jobs? This is not the first time that Sir Donald has connived at appointments which are clearly, in the smallest sense of the word, political. Is it not time that we had an open investigation of the whole working of that regional health authority?

Mr. Winterton: I would most certainly be happy to support that. I have been increasingly concerned over recent times about what is happening in Mersey. It has apparently become the individual fiefdom of Sir Donald Wilson. I believe that he even frightens Ministers.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I have been following the hon. Gentleman very closely. He has made deeply disturbing disclosures to the House, but am not clear what solution he proposes. Is he asking for a public inquiry urgently to consider what sounds like a considerable scandal?

Mr. Winterton: I believe that it is an absolute scandal, and a scandal which is not serving the best interests of the people whom I represent or those in the constituencies adjoining my own.
I sought to do things the right way. As soon as the matter occurred, I contacted the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State referred me to the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). He was not able to see me for some days. I was rather disappointed about that, but he at last saw me and gave me generously of his time when I outlined my concern in detail. He took almost a further fortnight to investigate the allegations, as a result of which I then received the letter from the Secretary of State. The matter was clearly so serious that the Minister for Health believed that the matter should be dealt with by the Secretary of State. I have quoted in part the letter that was sent to me by the Secretary of State herself in reply to the concern that I expressed. I am deeply concerned that she has not felt able to intervene in this scandalous matter—she should.
Although I am most unhappy about the appointment of Simon Cussons—that can be excused and explained, although I do not accept the explanation—but the appointment of that chief executive cannot be allowed to go ahead. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked me what I was seeking. I am seeking to have the appointment not confirmed, and I am looking for the apppintment to be readvertised and a proper ethical selection procedure adopted to chose a new chief executive for Macclesfield. I am not saying that Mrs. Chris Hannah cannot again have her name put in on her behalf if she is not prepared to put it in herself and not prepared to respond to the advertisement which went out in the first instance.
Finally, I have sought to raise this matter in the most responsible way. When that responsible way is blocked and no action is taken, I have no alternative but to bring the matter before the House, initially through the early-day motions that I have tabled. Perhaps I should also mention early-day motion 1044 that was subsequently tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). That motion has been signed by a large number of hon. Members from Merseyside. Clearly, they have considered the action that I have taken as reflecting their worry about the way in which Sir Donald Wilson is blustering his way through health matters in the Mersey region. I do not say it very easily—I am choosing to say it here, I agree—but the man is a bully not only to his staff but to those who are appointed to health authorities in his region. It is a very sad state of affairs when one man can do so much damage within an area.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give me an assurance that the Government will seek to discuss the matter with Sir Donald Wilson and with

the chairman of the Macclesfield health authority, County Councillor Simon Cussons, have the appointment of Mrs. Chris Hannah annulled—not confirmed—ensure that arrangements are made to readvertise the position, and have a proper ethical procedure for the selection of a chief executive for the Macclesfield health authority.
I do not make those comments easily. I have sought to work with Sir Donald Wilson. I have sought to work with Ministers in the Department of Health, and I am sure that they will admit that. I have always gone to them prior to taking action such as I am taking on the Floor of the House. The matter is of such importance that it had to be put to the House to try to bring additional pressure to get action so that the people of my area will know that democracy still has some value in this country. I want an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the appointment will be rescinded, that it will not be confirmed, and that a new selection procedure will be allowed to go ahead and fresh advertising undertaken, so that we will know that we have the best candidate, not the one who is most suitable to Sir Donald Wilson.
I make a final plea. I know that it is expecting rather too much of my right hon. Friend, but I mean it. In the past, Sir Donald has done some good work, but he has run out of time and he is now counter-productive to the best interests of health care and to the reforms which are so dear to the Government of the day. I am committed to serving my constituents, and I am today reflecting the concern that they have expressed to me. I am speaking not only for myself but on behalf of the chairman of the Macclesfield community health council and the council as a whole, which has written to the local health authority saying that it is strongly opposed to the merger of the two authorities.
That is, perhaps, an indication that Sir Donald Wilson is seeking to ride roughshod over people and to roll them into the dirt to get his own way, whatever the arguments of the issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me some assurance about this matter when he replies.

Sir Russell Johnston: The House has been riveted by a tale of Byzantine intrigue and nepotism in Macclesfield. I even forgive the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for saying "finally" three times in the past five minutes. Obviously, I cannot speak about his problems, but I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall sign his early-day motion. When he was deposed from the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health, I took that as a sign that the one thing the Government did not like about those Committees was a robust, firm and vigorous criticism of their policies.
I should like to discuss Bosnia, which has already been raised by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). The part of the Prime Minister's statement on the Edinburgh summit that referred to the situation in Bosnia was inadequate, as was his response to specific questions about that region.
I should be in favour of delaying the Adjournment of the House so that we could at least have a debate on Bosnia. I accept that that might be difficult to arrange, but


the least to which we should have a right is a statement tomorrow on why direct action is still ruled out. I believe that that action is essential.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South mentioned a meeting with the Bosnian Foreign Minister, Mr. Silajdzic, in Edinburgh on Saturday. Mr. Silajdzic also gave a lengthy interview to The Herald on Saturday in which he said:
My God. My God. Anybody with the smallest intelligence can see there has to be intervention. It should have happened months ago. Please listen to me. They have already killed 100,000 of my countrymen … And yet still they say we must talk, talk, talk, and the slaughter is only just starting. What must I say? What must I do? I keep travelling all over Europe. To speak to leaders. I go to the USA … I speak to everyone. To John Major at the London conference. That was three months ago and even though every accord has been broken they still do nothing.
That is what the man at the centre of the situation believes. I, too, believe that we must act.
The Ministry of Defence, official governmental and European Community line is that intervention is impossible. On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State for Defence repeated the same things that he has said before—that intervention would involve an intolerably large number of troops. In tonight's edition of the Evening Standard, in an article headed "Ashdown escapes in mortar bombing", the Secretary of State says:
The reality is that if the UN wanted to intervene in a military sense it would have to contemplate a commitment for many years involving perhaps, more than 100,000 troops. The likelihood is of very large numbers of casualties, and with no certainty that the war would be brought to an end.
That is the official line. That article also quotes from the American Vice-President-elect, Al Gore, who says that more should be done to enforce the flying ban. He is directly quoted as saying:
The resistance and reluctance that has been coming from our European allies I frankly find hard to understand.
On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State was pressed to respond to that charge, and he did not make a good one. The only thing he said was that it was all very well for Senator Al Gore to say that when there were no American troops in Bosnia. There are no British troops in Somalia, as far as I know, but that does not mean that we are not giving warm support to what the Americans are doing there. We should bear in mind that it is inevitable that the Americans will say to the Europeans that America will not be our nanny all the time. It is inevitable that they believe that we must do some things ourselves and that it is our responsibility in the first instance to respond to the situation in Bosnia.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the British soldiers now in former Yugoslavia, including those of the Cheshire and Staffordshire Regiments, are being issued with notices of termination of their contracts with the British Army? Does he agree that that hardly seems a sensible way in which to treat British regiments?

Sir Russell Johnston: I take note of what the hon. Lady has said, as has, I am sure, the Leader of the House. I hope that he will respond to that point.
Wider questions arise about the defence review, which is obviously affected by the demands put upon us in former Yugoslavia, but, if hon. Members will forgive me, I shall not enter into that discussion now.
The argument against intervention is that it would require an enormous number of troops. Those who argue against intervention often cite what happened to the Germans in the second world war—the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South also touched on that. Some people have said that 30 German divisions were deployed in Yugoslavia during the war, but I believe that, at the maximum, there were seven. Certainly there were more divisions in Yugoslavia when the Germans were retreating from Greece, but during the occupation there were just seven. One should remember that those divisions dealt with all of Yugoslavia, not just Bosnia. One should also remember that every man's hands were turned against the Germans—when they were not turned against each other.

Mr. Bill Walker: That was not very often.

Sir Russell Johnston: No, there is no doubt that every man's hands were turned against the Germans.
What did the Germans lack? First, they did not have any helicopters; if they had, I am quite sure that, considering the efficiency of the German army, they would have sorted out Tito in double quick time. Secondly, the Germans did not have modern sophisticated weapons, such as heat-seeking weapons, or modern sophisticated aircraft. To make comparisons with the German occupation is unrealistic.
A year ago in a letter to The Times I argued that we should have used air power on the Serbs as they were encircling Osijek. A year later, the argument in favour of air power is becoming more difficult because things are much messier, but I still think that it stands. Air power could be used in Sarajevo, which is a howl aurrounded by clearly definable military targets. It could also be used to deal with the advancing Bosnian Serbs in the northern part of Bosnia.
The use of air power would have not only a military effect on the Bosnian Serbs but an enormous psychological effect, because it would demonstrate that the Europeans, or the west, will not allow the Serbian attack to go on any longer. One should also remember that because of the alliance between the Croats and the Muslims, one would have to deal with the Bosnian Serbs alone. At the moment we should aim for a ceasefire—the one thing that endless talks have failed to produce.
The line taken by the new Yugoslavia, if I can call it that—Serbia and Montenegro—is that it has fulfilled all the United Nations demands set out in resolution 752. It has produced a note to that effect, stating:
The last 92 Yugoslav soldiers were withdrawn on 19 June 1992
from Bosnia. It goes on to say that no military interference has taken place since.
I was informed at the weekend of aerial photographs showing quite large numbers of tanks crossing from new Yugoslavia into Bosnia. Is any information available about that? One presumes that there is continual surveillance by American satellites. Given the political argument that is raging, it is important that people know the facts; there is no security reason for concealing such


matters. The effect of air strikes would be considerable, and if there were military intervention on the ground, the demand would be far less than has been suggested.
Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley wrote a long article in The Independent on Sunday in which he spoke of some
30,000 troops plus naval and air support.
I am not a military expert, but as a highly respected senior British general, his views should be taken into account.
I object to the repeated suggestion that this is a civil war. An advertisement to that effect on behalf of the new Yugoslavia appeared in, I think, The Independent, referring to the Yugoslav civil war. In Bosnia, we are talking not about a civil war but about the activities of one group against both the others. In the context of Yugoslavia as a whole, this has not been civil war. The Foreign Minister of Bosnia admits that there have been atrocities on both sides—not just the Serbs have been guilty of atrocities. He said:
there have been atrocities on both sides, but what do I expect? Kill a man's son, then rape his wife and he is no longer a man. You have stolen his humanity. There is a difference, you know, between active and reactive crime.
That is an interesting statement: the difference between active and reactive crime. The contention in this conflict has been that, although horrible things have been done by both sides, the main weight has been the continual aggressive action by the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia, which has produced the horrible prison camps and the allegations—which have been confirmed, or surely the summit in Edinburgh would not have referred to them —of rape camps. The weight of responsibility clearly rests on the one side.
As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said, a threat exists to Kosovo and Macedonia, which should have been recognised by the summit. The fact that Greece is able to stop this and simultaneously break the sanctions embargoes by supplying oil should not have been permitted by other Community countries. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Jeddah conference, which said that it expected some action by the 15th, which is tomorrow.

Mr. Cormack: Of January.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry; I meant January. It is a generous time scale, but it is also a short time. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) wanted to intervene, but she was merely doing natural things; I am sorry.
What is happening in Bosnia is terrible and it is getting steadily worse. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South is right to fear that it might produce an extraordinary explosion among Muslims in other parts of the world. A serious British Muslim asked me, "How would the west respond if the Turks took things into their own hands and unilaterally took out the guns around Sarajevo?" What could I say? That risk exists. The least the House should do is debate these matters before we rise.

Mr. William Powell: I make no apology for returning to the subject of Bosnia, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) spoke. One must agree with the hon. Gentleman's references to the terrible events in Bosnia.
The subject was raised in the Christmas Adjournment debate a year ago by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and I recall commenting on the terrible seiges at Osijek and Vukovar. It was bad enough then. Perhaps it was predictable that it would get worse, but the reality of how much worse it has become was forcefully struck home in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. He rightly said that there is every chance, unless good sense prevails, that in a year's time we may be dealing with what he described as a holocaust—very much worse than even the terrible events that are unfolding before us.
I am glad to say that, notwithstanding the terrible reports that have emerged from the former Yugoslavia, our Government have not been quite as inactive as is sometimes suggested. I am far from sanguine about how successful active military intervention would be. It is easy for us, without having to confront the reality of the terrain and conflict in Yugoslavia, to forecast how simple it would be to resolve the matter, but surely we have enough experience of Northern Ireland to realise that military intervention does not necessarily solve problems as easily as those who enter into such engagements might imagine. We have surely enough experience of Northern Ireland to know that the difficulties of reconciling what appear to outsiders to be irreconcilable divisions are considerable.
I hope that the House will not allow itself to be talked too easily into believing how easy a military solution for Yugoslavia might be. I am glad that this summer and autumn my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and members of the Government have responded actively to many of the reports.
I want to talk principally about war crimes. War crimes are war crimes, and although the events that are occurring in Yugoslavia can easily be overlooked by many people in the horrid rush of extra events that pile one on top of another, it lies with us to assert some fundamental moral principles. The fundamental moral principle that we must assert more than any other is that these crimes against humanity are outlawed under international law. We should send a message to every single person in Yugoslavia who is committing crimes against humanity or who may do so in the weeks and months ahead that their names are being taken and their crimes catalogued and that, if it is possible for them to be brought to account and stand trial before a tribunal, that is exactly the fate which will befall them. The civilised international community will have details of their names, the allegations made against them and evidence of the outrages that have been perpetrated. If those people seek to travel abroad, they will be arrested when they arrive at the frontiers of civilised countries. There will be no hiding place for them.
One issue about which I feel most strongly is that too many people may have allowed their moral senses to become numbed to Yugoslavia and have overlooked the fact that crimes are crimes however they are committed. The evidence is accumulating. Sir John Thompson went to Yugoslavia and compiled a report in late summer this year; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided over the London conference; and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was asked to examine whether there was evidence on which people might be prosecuted.
A special rapporteur, the former Prime Minister of Poland, Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was appointed. He investigated the issue of human rights between 21 and 26


August and his conclusions were published in a United Nations document on 3 September this year. The House will bear it in mind that we are dealing with a man of considerable distinction. His main conclusions were that massive and grave violation of human rights were occurring throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and that such violations were being perpetrated by all parties, but, in describing what was happening to the Muslim population, he used the phrase "particularly tragic". He also said that the violence was being tolerated and even encouraged by the responsible authorities. He said that there was an immediate need for concerted action. The report was available at the London conference.
In moderate but nevertheless very clear terms, that man of distinction was making it perfectly plain that crimes against humanity were being committed. Such crimes are outlawed under international law, but were being encouraged by persons in responsible positions. That is unacceptable. Mr. Mazowiecki went on to say that the heavy weaponry on the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina should immediately be neutralised and placed under the supervision of the United Nations protection force, and that the United Nations should continue to call on the competent authorities to abandon the policy of ethnic cleansing in all its forms, a policy which has caused so much outrage in the rest of the world.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South that the initiatives must come above all else from the United Nations. If that is not possible for any reason, the CSCE also has a leading role to play. The report also stated that the United Nations should without delay issue a peremptory warning to the authorities controlling the different parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina that, with respect to their duty to safeguard the security of civilian populations, they may, in accordance with the norm and standards of international law, be brought to justice, for not only the direct perpetration but the toleration of acts of atrocity, violence and other violations of human rights.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he referred specifically to Mazowiecki's suggestion of putting heavy weapons under the control of the United Nations. How is that to be done, other than by some form of military intervention? How are war criminals to be brought to court unless we bring about the cessation of hostilities? I raised the issue of war crimes in a debate on 16 November, but the Government made no response.

Mr. Powell: I shall say something in due course about the trial of those responsible for war crimes, because the main burden of my remarks involves the establishment of a tribunal to deal with such matters.
At the London conference it was decided to send a party of what can only be described as three wise men, although one turned out to be a lady, to investigate further the matters which were raised by Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki. On the initiative of the United Kingdom they asked Ambassador Correl, the chief legal adviser to the Swedish Foreign Office, to go to Croatia to investigate further. He selected Ambassador Turk of Austria and Ambassador Thune of Norway to go with him. They were in Croatia from 30 September to 5 October. They concluded that there were numerous reports of atrocities

against unarmed civilians as well as the practice of ethnic cleansing in Croatia and, that, while such reports could be attributed to both parties to the conflict, it appeared that the scale and gravity of the crimes committed by the Yugoslav national army, the Serbian paramilitary groups and the police forces in the Knim authorities were by far the most serious.
They also stated that they had received sufficient evidence to establish a legal basis for international prosecution, that an expert committee should be convened immediately to arrange a system for the collection of information, that an expert committee should be formed to prepare a treaty establishing an ad hoc tribunal to hear the allegations of crimes and that an international forensic expert group should be sent immediately to investigate the evidence of mass graves. If that is not completed before the coming winter, there is a real danger that the evidence itself might be destroyed because of the extraordinarily low temperatures which can be experienced in that region, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South mentioned.
That report from the three rapporteurs led by Ambassador Correl from Sweden was available in October. The matter was then handed to the United Nations. Of course, we are aware that the United Nations passed resolution 780 on 6 October. It established an expert group to collect and analyse the information submitted to it with a view to providing the Secretary-General of the United Nations with its conclusions on the evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva convention and other violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia.
Five people were appointed to examine the issue. Fortunately for the world, one of those five was none other than the redoubtable Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, of De Paul university in Chicago, who is recognised throughout the world as a leading authority on international law and who is the author of the standard textbook about crimes against humanity which was recently published on all continents.
Unfortunately, no budget was given to the five men and there were no satisfactory conditions for them to carry out their work. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons to coment in detail this evening, but I should be grateful if he would draw my remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, from whom I should like to know in due course the state of the financial assistance provided to the five men, how many staff they will have and what opportunities they are being given.
I am told by the redoubtable Professor Bassiouni that the group has met only once. In other words, although the world community recognises that something is very wrong and that something must be done, efforts to put right the problems are so far desperately inadequate. That must now change. The message must go out that all those responsible for crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia can expect to have to account for themselves not only in the celestial heavens to which they, like the rest of us, will go in due course, but in this world.
What is now required is the establishment under international authority of an ad hoc tribunal to set about the task of collecting the evidence and ensuring that it is possible to place on trial those responsible for the most outrageous criminal acts. If possible, that should be done


under the authority of the United Nations. The United Nations should be asked to move not some time well into next year, but before Christmas.
If it is not possible because of the internal workings of the UN—I know that a number of people are concerned about the attitude of the People's Republic of China in this respect—for such action to be taken under the authority of the UN, it should be taken under the authority of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I know that the CSCE is concerned about whether its authority might be undermined by an unsuccessful attempt to intervene in this way, but now is a time when we simply must be bold. What is happening is too wrong and such wrong cannot be allowed to prevail.
I welcome the fact that Dame Anne Warburton is going out to Yugoslavia to investigate the terrible news we have heard about the rape camps, which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South mentioned. The story that appeared in The Times today seemed simply too appalling to be true, but all of us know that it may well be true. Such atrocities cannot be allowed to prevail.
I have asked again and again in the House for an international court or international tribunal to deal with international crimes against humanity. If ever there was a case for the world community establishing such a tribunal, this is the case.
I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27 October. I asked him to persuade his colleagues in the Government to adopt a much
more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery
for the trial of such crimes.
My right hon. Friend replied:
I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance."—[Official Report, 27 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 862.]
I welcome that reply. I am convinced that our Government are trying to make some progress on the matter, although I do not underestimate how difficult it is to secure the agreement of the others who must be involved.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. If the international community is to will those ends, it must also will the means by which to bring the people concerned to trial.

Mr. Powell: Indeed, that is the case. It is perfectly possible to proceed. There is a draft convention which was discussed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the autumn. Our country, on behalf of the European Community and the sixth committee, gave a most positive statement in October about the European Community's intent. It is perfectly possible for us to proceed quite quickly. The draft exists. It would be possible to table any necessary amendments, to debate them and to decide on them quickly if there were a will.
I believe that there is a growing will in the Government to make some progress. I want to encourage the Government to go further. Above all else, I want everyone in the House and in the country yet again to assert that what is happening is wrong, to say that it cannot be allowed to prevail and to say that the civilised thing to do is to try to bring to justice, if not now, then as soon as we can, those who carry responsibility for the outrages.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) in discussing the troubles of the former Yugoslavia, but I, too, want to raise a matter of considerable importance before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
Last Friday, my constituency and much of south Wales were shocked by the announcement by Marconi that it was to close its remaining factory in Newport, with the loss of more than 400 jobs. That was a shattering blow to the town and to the surrounding area. The workers there have nowhere else to go.
I want the House to be clear that the works is not what might be called a doll's eye factory. There are many in south Wales which were established to try to compensate for the loss of jobs in coal mining and in steel. Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd., to give the company its official title, employs many highly skilled design engineers.
In October, the company announced the closure of its Corporation road factory, with the loss of more than 100 jobs. The works formerly employed 700 people, but it had been progressively run down. Now the second factory is to close, making a total of more than 500 jobs lost, many of them highly skilled. There is, of course, the multiplier effect, which brings the figure to approximately 1,500 when one takes into consideration the ancillary concerns linked to and dependent on the two factories.
We know that the name "Marconi" is merely a trade name. The company is really the General Electric Company Ltd., GEC, which is presided over by the well-known predator, Lord Weinstock. The Spytty road factory in Newport opened approximately 17 years ago and it is very modern. It is well situated because it is close to the M4, to the dual carriageway and to motorway links to Birmingham and the midlands. Until three years ago, the factory was part of the Plessey empire; but for many years, the company was pursued by Lord Weinstock, who was most anxious to take it over.
With several colleagues, I worked with Sir John Clarke, the then chairman of Plessey, and his executive team. When the first GEC bid was made, it was warded off. On the second occasion, some three years ago, Lord Weinstock's attempt was successful. By 14 September 1989, GEC owned 76 per cent. of the Plessey shares. The takeover was heralded as the dawn of a new era. It was to be rationalisation, from which all manner of benefits were supposed to flow.
The outcome, as I said, was rather different and both factories are now to close. All that the highly trained, highly skilled labour force have got is a Christmas redundancy package. The works is quickly to be run down from March 1993, with the gates finally closing in September.
From all reports, it is a poor redundancy package. The pay-out will be the state minimum. The closure procedure and the dates which I have mentioned apparently have that factor very much in mind. There has been concern locally about the way in which the closure announcement was made. The workers first heard that the factory was to close on the television news on the night of Thursday 10 December. It was as if the management were allowing the media to do their dirty work for them.
I can confirm at first hand the botched way in which the matter was handled by the company. On Saturday 12 December, I received a letter, dated 14 December, from a


Mr. M. J. Shaw who was referred to as the divisional director sonar, Marconi Underwater Systems Ltd. The letter told me that the closure announcement was to be made to the staff on Monday 14 December and that there was to be the eventual loss of all 400 jobs. What a way for a firm of this size, with an international reputation to uphold, to carry on. Is it any wonder that the workers are expressing anger and astonishment?
I appreciate the changed circumstances of the past few years, with the cut in defence procurement following the end of east-west confrontation and the virtual disintegration of the Soviet Union. There is now a crying need to reorganise the defence industry for peaceful production. One would have thought that GEC was in an ideal position to play a major part in that kind of development. According to an article by Andrew Lorenz in the Sunday Times on 6 December, Lord Weinstock is quoted as saying that he has £1·8 billion to invest. That is profit generated by the efforts of the employees. I contrast that massive surplus with the mean, parsimonious attitude which the company seems to be adopting towards its workpeople, who are now considered surplus to requirements.
With all those millions of pounds in GEC's coffers ready for investment, the company is said to be in preliminary discussions about becoming a partner in power station projects in Indonesia and southern Europe and in power station and road schemes in China. That kind of investment will not help to save jobs in that factory in Newport.
Lord Weinstock is also said to be contemplating investing in road and rail in the United Kingdom. I would be the first to applaud investment in our infrastructure, as I have been calling for an increase in that sector for years. Nevertheless, it is state investment that should go into infrastructure; I am thinking of the billions of pounds that are raised each year in motor taxation, less than a quarter of which is spent on roads.
The millions of Lord Weinstock should go back into manufacturing industry, from where they were generated, to make Britain more competitive in world markets so that we as a country can cut imports, thereby improving our trade balance which has been so deeply in the red for so long. In doing that, Lord Weinstock would also provide jobs for his existing work force instead of making them redundant.
The Government do not appear to have grasped the need for a change in our industrial production following the end of the cold war. There are immense opportunities, but a non-interventionist approach is not needed.
The President of the Board of Trade seemed to be on the right lines when he told the Conservative party conference recently that he was prepared to intervene
before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner on behalf of British industry.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to sit in the Chamber and do their correspondence? Hon. Members have come here to debate matters of considerable importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I thought that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) had acknowledged me when I nodded to

her and I know that the point was made to her by the Whips. There are facilities in this place to deal with one's correspondence. The place to do so is not in the Chamber.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I point out that I am perfectly capable of listening to what is happening and doing my local work at the same time? Unlike most hon. Members, I do not employ a secretary in London. I wish to know what is going on because, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, these matters are important. If I wish to take up a point that is being made, I am perfectly capable of doing that and of doing my correspondence at the same time. I did bow to your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by ceasing to use a pair of scissors. However, I must say that I think the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is more than somewhat narrow-minded.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Recently, I have noticed that many of the courtesies of the Chamber seem to have been put on one side, probably as a result of ignorance on the part of new hon. Members, for example, when leaving the Chamber after making a speech before the next speaker has spoken. It is not proper to do one's correspondence in the Chamber. There are facilities to do that elsewhere. I should be obliged if the hon. Member for Lancaster would refrain from doing so.

Mr. Hughes: Before that interruption, I was referring to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to the Conservative party conference when he said that he was prepared to intervene at any time on the part of British industry. However, we have not seen much evidence of that resolve. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade has been too busy closing our very efficient coal industry.
The message crying out from the GEC-Marconi situation has been known for more than 2,000 years. I took the trouble of looking up Isaiah chapter 2, verse 4 which is about settling disputes between great nations. It states:
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks".
It is surely not too difficult to put that biblical message into a modern context.
I conclude by repeating the proposal that I made earlier today to the Secretary of State for Wales during Welsh questions. I called on him and the Secretary of State for Defence and the President of the Board of Trade to intervene to stop the closure in that vital works in Newport. Why pick on south Wales in that way? It has faced enough problems with coal and steel redundancies and closures. I plead with the Government to give our area a break. It has suffered enough.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I declare an interest as chairman of the Falkland Islands group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I want to raise a matter which is of great importance to the people of the Falkland Islands which I believe should be debated in the House before we rise for the Christmas recess—that is, the unilateral decision of the Republic of Argentina to invite applications to fish in its waters in the south-west Atlantic from countries which have, until recently, been fishing in Falkland Islands waters.
The Argentines are offering cheaper licences for longer periods, thus attracting trawlers away from the Falklands. Not only will that pose a severe threat to the economy of


the Falklands; it is also likely to decimate the stocks of ilex squid. The economy of the Falkland Islands depends on the population of ilex squid.
The Argentine action has been taken without prior consultation with either the British or Falkland Island Governments. It pays no regard to the need to conserve the stocks of ilex squid, and it will lead to its rapid depletion. It is likely to cost the Falkland Islands between £8 million and £16 million a year, which will seriously affect the ability of the islands to remain self-sufficient.
To put those figures in perspective, one must realise that the total income of the Falkland Islands from those and other activities is about £30 million a year. The cost of the action represents a drop of anything up to 50 per cent. in the islands' income. In short, it represents a serious crisis which requires firm action from the British Government without delay.
Of course, as the House would expect, discussions have taken place between officials. Every effort has been made to resolve the problem. However, the discussions, which included proposals to limit the amount of squid that can be caught in Argentine waters, broke down at the weekend. We are therefore today faced with a very serious situation—indeed, one of the most serious situations since the conflict that occurred between the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Argentina has made it clear that it will allow trawlers which fish for ilex squid to catch between 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes. If that happens, it will be a disaster for the Falkland islanders and the conservation of fish stock which feeds millions of people around the world.
I am sure that my colleagues in the House who have visited the Falkland Islands will have been as impressed as I was to see the size of the fish when they are eventually caught and realise how vital they are in feeding so many people. Therefore, it is not simply an Argentine matter; it affects many people who live in the less developed countries of the world.
It is possible that the Argentine decision could wipe out the ilex squid in a few years. The reason is that the life cycle of the fish is only one year. The fish which are caught in Argentine waters will be small and at the beginning of their life cycle. They are usually a good size by the time they reach Falkland waters.
Why is Argentina taking this unilateral action? The House may agree that it looks like a rather hostile political decision, intended to threaten the economy of the Falklands. The action is not necessary to Argentina or its economy. I believe that it is a most unfriendly act, to say the very least, by a country which wants to develop its trade with Britain and the Community and put recent events behind it. I say that because imports from Argentina in the 12 months to September 1992 were worth £122·3 million. British exports to Argentina for the same period were £103·4 million so we have a trade deficit with that country.
Argentina also seeks something else. It wants a fishery agreement with the European Community which will enable surplus European Community fishing vessels, mainly from Spain and Portugal, to fish in south-west Atlantic waters. To that end, the Community will contribute 28 million ecu—about $35 million—during the validity of the agreement, which has been initialled but not signed. That means that the Exchequer and the people of Britain will contribute to that money which is intended to enable the accord to come into force. It also means that the

European Community is positively encouraging vessels to fish in the Falkland waters, and is providing financial aid to Argentina to develop its fishery.
Argentina constantly stresses to the Falkland islanders that contact is needed with them so that the two countries can share research and technology. The Falklands have frequently tried to share information with the Argentines. It has urged the Argentines that the stocks will be depleted if unrestricted fishing is allowed and fishing vessels will move to other fishing grounds. Both countries will suffer revenue loss.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a fellow officer of the all-party Falkland Islands group, I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the issue. Can he explain that the Falkland Islands Government operates a most responsible conservation policy? In the past, it has limited the licences it issues and the size of catch that a fishing boat can bring in to the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I visited the Falkland Islands fishery in August and was able to see the policy which was being pursued. The policy is very responsible, designed to conserve fish stocks to the benefit of all concerned.
The problem is that, despite what the Argentines have said, so far they have taken little notice of approaches from the Falkland islanders and no action to give effect to their words. If the fishery grounds are carefully managed, there is no reason why the fishery should not last for many years to come, to the benefit of both countries. However, that simply has not happened.
As we sit here a few days before the Christmas recess, what can be done to make it clear to our fellow citizens in the Falklands and the Argentine Government that the British Government is not prepared to accept the decision? First, I believe that urgent action must be taken at senior ministerial level to make Argentina aware that Britain regards its action as likely to cause a major crisis. Secondly, it should be made clear to Argentina that the United Kingdom will veto the proposed fishing accord by using the Luxembourg compromise of saying that vital national interests are involved. We could do that because at present the United Kingdom is considering the accord, especially its effect on the Falklands.
I should like to say this in the spirit of Christmas. I hope that none of those actions will be necessary. I hope that Argentina will re-examine the serious problem and recognise that, if it wishes to trade with our country and the European Community and be accepted, and if we are to put behind us the recent unhappy events, hostile action of this sort against small islands and a small population is simply unacceptable to the people of the United Kingdom and those who live in western Europe. I hope that Argentina will give thought to those matters and resume talks as quickly as possible.

Mr. Tom Cox: This debate gives hon. Members the opportunity to raise issues which they believe should be urgently debated, and that is what I intend to do in the short time that I wish to detain the House.
Last Thursday, hundreds of men and women from many parts of the country who have links with Kashmir lobbied Members of Parliament. Many hon. Members not only met those men and women, but spoke at the meeting


that took place in the campaign that has been conducted for many years to give the people of Kashmir the right to decide how they wish their future to be developed.
The sad tragedy of Kashmir is one of continuing suffering to men and women of all ages, from the very young to the very old. For more than 45 years, part of Kashmir has been occupied by the Indian army, under the direct control of the Indian Government. It has been a rule of oppression and brutality. Many organisations have requested permission to visit the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir to see what conditions are like. Many hon. Members have made similar requests. Those continual requests are always refused, yet no reason whatever is given by the Indian authorities for such refusals.
Last year, the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), the former Member for Ilford, South, Mr. Neil Thorne, and I visited Pakistan. I pay the warmest tribute to Pakistan, not only for its commitment to Kashmir, but also for the care that it shows to the refugees who have fled the Indian-occupied area of their country. I saw with my own eyes the brutality that has been inflicted on men and women who had escaped from the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir. Horrendous and sordid injuries had been inflicted on those people.
We visited the area of Kashmir which is now the responsibility of Pakistan. We were allowed to go anywhere we wished, and we were allowed to speak to anyone to whom we wished to speak.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Gentleman speaks highly of Pakistan. Does he recall that, soon after he and I entered the House in 1970, wicked and atrociously cruel oppression was perpetrated by the Pakistan army on the people of East Pakistan and East Bengal, now Bangladesh? Is he aware that the Pakistanis now give aid and comfort to terrorists in Kashmir?

Mr. Cox: I take the gravest exception to the hon. Gentleman's last comment about terrorists of Kashmir, as indeed will people who are citizens of Great Britain. They are men and women fighting for their freedom. If the Indian Government allowed those so-called terrorists the opportunity freely to decide their future, they would decide it. The hon. Gentleman should know as well as I do that the great tragedy of Kashmir is that freedom and opportunity are being denied.
I return to the comments that I wish to make. I saw the most horrendous and sordid injuries that had been inflicted on people. I shall give just one example. We saw a young boy of 16 who was picked up by the Indian army and accused of being a terrorist. He denied it. He was taken into a room and tied down on a table. His clothes were pulled open and kerosene oil was poured all over his chest and set alight. The burning that one saw on his body was one of the most sickening sights that anyone could see.
That example is not something we were just told about. I and two other Members of Parliament, one who is still a Conservative Member and the other who lost his seat at the election, saw the young boy. I could give many other examples of such injuries which we were not told about but which we saw for ourselves. People of all ages had suffered such brutal action.
Since 1948, many attempts have been made to solve the Kashmiri issue by means of the United Nations resolution.

Such efforts go back many years. The obstacle to progress is the lack of any real commitment on the part of the Indian Government. When it suits them, the Indian Government will say that India is the largest democracy in the world. The key to democracy is to allow people their freedom and allow them to decide how they wish their future to develop. That is what the people of Kashmir want: they want to decide whether they wish to be linked to India or Pakistan, or whether they want to be an independent country.
This afternoon and this evening, we have heard some moving debates on issues that concern all of us, such as the former Yugoslavia. Britain becomes involved in many issues. I do not criticise that. I am sure that we are deeply concerned about the former Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds and because we are horrified at the appalling suffering that many men and women are enduring there. However, we do not have any real links with Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia does not have the history which Kashmir has.
If the Leader of the House or any hon. Member doubts that the Kashmiri people look to Britain to play an active role, they need only read the commitments given by the last Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, to Kashmir and its people. I believe, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the efforts of the Kashmiri people to decide what their rights should be, that the Government must take some steps of paramount importance.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of my points and use his influence or that of his right hon. Friends to make those points to the relevant people. The British Government should immediately make it clear to the Indian Government that the brutal treatment and oppression of Kashmiri men and women must be stopped immediately, and full and free access to the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir given to organisations. There are many highly reputable organisations in Britain and throughout the world which could play that role, see what the conditions are and meet whomever they wish, so that they can form a judgment.
Many Members of Parliament would also like to have the opportunity to go to the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir and see what conditions are really like; but, despite enormous numbers of such requests, visits have not been allowed. There is always a reason why it is not convenient for us to go. If there is nothing to hide, why are groups not allowed to go? Why are Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, not allowed to go? The Government must seek via the United Nations a full debate on Kashmir. I hope that the United Kingdom will initiate that debate.
We want the Government to initiate a debate on Kashmir in Parliament in their own time early in the new year. Many men and women in Britain have links with Kashmir but are citizens of Great Britain. They believe that we should debate the issue in the House. As Members of Parliament who represent those people, we have a duty to allow them to hear the views of Parliament on that country.
The British Government should bring together the two Commonwealth countries which are deeply involved in Kashmir—Pakistan and India—at the Commonwealth conference next year and persuade them to agree to a debate on Kashmir at the conference.
Kashmir and its people want one thing: the freedom to decide their future. Every Member of Parliament, irrespective of party, has a duty to help those people and that country to achieve that objective.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three matters. They are hospital radio broadcasting, pets and Basildon.
I have the honour to be the unpaid parliamentary spokesman for Hospital Radio Broadcasting. As many hon. Members will know, it is the largest team of volunteers in Britain without any paid officers. One part of the organisation is Radio Lollipop, which operates in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). That radio station is dedicated to broadcasting to children. I am pleased to announce that it is organising a fax-a-joke project this Christmas, and hopes to broadcast it throughout the country to cheer up sick children in hospital.
On a serious note, I have probably been failing the organisation for the past five years. Hospital radio is merely asking for its own frequency. Often people visiting hospitals ask whether they can tune in to the hospital radio station on their own headsets. The benefits of FM broadcasting are that hospitals would not have to spend as much money on maintaining hardware systems and that our programmes would be heard more easily by the audience at which they are aimed.
Our programmes are generated by more than 15,000 volunteers within the 320 member stations in hospitals throughout the country, at an annual cost of £7 million. The aim of our organisation has never been to broaden the audience outside the homes and hospitals that we serve, but we want to get the programmes to the audience for which they are intended.
A recent test at Redhill hospital was a great disappointment. All the members are so enthusiastic about broadcasting. I broadcast from a hospital at Bow for a short time. Hospital radio is supposed to cheer up sick patients and I was told firmly that my voice was not therapeutic, but I took no offence and decided to work quietly behind the scenes.
On behalf of all the members of that organisation, which I am privileged to represent, I must say that it is churlish of the Broadcasting Authority to have shilly-shallied for five years. We still do not have our own frequency. I hope that the authority does not think that our organisation is not worth a frequency, and I hope that hon. Members throughout the House will support our initiative to get one.
The second issue is pets. Many hon. Members are keen on keeping pets, as is my household. I have it on good authority that Father Christmas will be delivering a canary to one of our children this Christmas. During times of great difficulty in the economy animals have suffered to some extent. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Act that controls the maintenance of pet shops is 41 years old—the Shops Act 1951.
Last year I tried to amend the 1951 Act. My simple Bill set out regulations for the care of pet animals, inspection

of pet shops by veterinary surgeons, the keeping of records and, most important of all, regulations on the sale of animals to children under 16.
I do not wish to be a spoilsport at Christmas, but it is just not good enough for a child to be allowed, without the parents' permission, to purchase a puppy, a kitten or an exotic reptile from a pet shop. All those animals need a great deal of care and it is incumbent upon pet shop owners to make certain that children's parents have given permission for their purchase. I know that the Leader of the House has a busy schedule in 1993, but I hope that he will find time for a short piece of legislation to amend the 1951 Act.
I shall end my speech on the subject of Basildon. The constituency has attracted some attention during the past year. One reason was that it was one of the first marginal constituences to show that there would once again he a Conservative Government. I am the only Member of Parliament that Basildon has had. We have gone to the good people of Basildon three times and been elected three times. On every occasion the media and other interested parties, including one or two Opposition Members, have forecast that a Conservative Member would not be re-elected.
It is no secret that the former rotten socialist council was one reason for my re-election in April, as it was an absolute disgrace. On 7 May, 15 Conservative candidates stood for election and were elected, with swings of between 20 and 50 per cent. from the socialists to the Conservatives.
In May, my poor, excellent, Conservative council was left with hardly enough money to collect the refuse—we were left with only £0.5 million in the reserves. The former socialist council wanted to spend £28 million. Of that, £14 million was to go in wages and £7 million towards capital and interest payments on loans. My excellent Conservative councillors were left to grapple with that scandalous state of affairs. They have done a sterling job during the past five months and have pledged that next year, for the first time ever, Basildon will not be capped, and that it will not be capped again as long as it has a Conservative council.
During the past year, much has been written and said about Basildon and much has been heard about the town on television and radio. However, much of it has been written by people who have no knowledge of my constituency. They pop in and out with their teams and write stories with no meaning. It is about time that the truth was heard and that is why I hope that next Christmas hon. Members will purchase for their stockings a book called "The Road to Basildon", of which I am the author. On that note, I wish everyone a happy Christmas and I hope that they will enjoy good health and prosperity in 1993.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) ended on a happy note with some self-congratulation and wished us all a merry Christmas, but anyone who has sat through the debate will realise that it will not be merry in many parts of the world. We have heard speeches about the gravest matters and no doubt many hon. Members will wish to follow them.
Today we have come here to comment briefly on matters of concern to our constituents, and I shall deal with the methods and policy of the Northern Ireland


Housing Executive in regard to the grants that it pays for private housing. The grants run at about £32 million a year and have done an enormous amount of good in the past. In 1984, about 27,000 properties benefited from the grants, but by last year the figure had fallen to 5,748. That fall reflects two things: first, that restrictions are placed on those who can get a grant; and, secondly, that there has been a general improvement in the housing stock. However, there have been problems and setbacks. For example, replacement grants seemed suddenly to vanish; no one seems to be able to get one. Also, people were offered a grant and spent money on having plans drawn up, only to discover that the grant was withdrawn at the last minute. That is a scandal.
I have long preached in the House that it is often better to replace a poor house than to spend a lot of good money to repair it. If people were offered less for replacing than repairing, we would have a much better housing stock throughout the United Kingdom, not just in Northern Ireland.
Because of the present financial circumstances, the Housing Executive grant system was changed and a new system came into operation on 1 October. I appreciate the fact that the Government wish to means-test everything, but I do not know whether it is wise to apply it to housing. However, that has happened and I am not sure whether much saving has resulted. Although the change was unwelcome, I understand it, given the philosophy that lies behind the Government's action.
My constituents and I cannot understand the Housing Executive grant form. The first 12 questions on the form are perfectly straightforward and resemble those found on any Government form. However, we take grave exception to question 13, which states:
It is Executive Policy to direct grant aid regardless of the political affiliation or religious belief of the applicant.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) should listen carefully to this because it applies to what he was saying. The question goes on:
In pursuit of this Policy the Executive strives to ensure fairness in the treatment of all households and individuals. To help us achieve this aim it is important that we collect basic information on the religious denomination of applicants. Please tick which of the following best describes the religious composition of your household.
It then gives the choice between Protestant, Roman Catholic, mixed Protestant and Roman Catholic, or other.
I find that scandalous and do not see what on earth an individual's religious affiliation has to do with whether his house needs repair: either it needs repair or it does not; either it falls within the legislation or it does not. In all the years that I have been a Member, many applications for grants have passed across my desk. I have received many complaints about how the grants have been administered, but I have never received a complaint from an applicant who has been refused a grant saying that it was refused on the grounds that he was a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. He may have been refused for many other reasons and may have had difficulties with the reasons given for refusal, but he never said, "I was refused because of the house of worship that I attend on a Sunday morning or evening."
The position is now different. We have never had the problem before, but the mere asking of that question makes it an issue. Since I first raised the question in Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive has said that

applicants need not answer that question. Why ask it, then? If it is not filled in, it will soon make an utter nonsense of the statistics. Experience of fair employment legislation has already shown us that, although it is not obligatory to answer the question now, the next step is that it will have to be answered. The matter will go on and on and great efforts will be made to find out exactly what an individual's religious affiliations are.
Because the question of religion is now being asked, the executive will have to publish statistics on who has replied and who has received and been refused grants. They will then have to stop assistance to decide how grants can be allocated fairly. Will it be by the sums allocated to the religious group in question, by the number of grants made or by area? Will the applicant need to be visited by different grants officers—two sets of them—or will there be two sets of administrative staff just to determine whether the grants are being allocated fairly?
The matter will not end with Housing Executive repair grants. One thinks of all the ramifications such a policy will cause in terms of the grants that farmers receive. There are big farmers, little farmers, dairy farmers, pig farmers, poultry farmers, sheep farmers, beef farmers, potato farmers and less-favoured areas. Each will be able to complain of discrimination. In industry, the Local Enterprise Development Unit in Northern Ireland, the industrial development boards and other groups will claim discrimination. The issue may also apply to social security benefits. I do not know where it will end, but I wonder where it comes from.
The Belfast News Letter editorial of 7 December, when I raised the question, said:
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive appears to be indoctrinated with the pontifical, and at times absurd, policy-speak of the Fair Employment Commission, if the questionnaire on its grants form is anything to go by.
I share that view and believe that the form should be withdrawn. It is another mistake as it asks a irrelevant question. That offensive question should be removed and, while the Housing Executive is at it, it should also withdraw the earlier form that it produced for the housing selection scheme, which apparently asks the same question. I was not aware of that until now. It used to be illegal in Northern Ireland to ask the religious denomination of anyone applying for a job or anything else. It is not a requirement. The Housing Executive must face a lot of questions from me about who has received a grant.

Mr. John Greenway: I always enjoy these debates, particularly the one at Christmas. Faced with Christmas shopping, writing Christmas cards or the opportunity to raise an issue about which I feel strongly on the Floor of the House, I feel that there is no choice. We have heard some emotional speeches so far and, although my speech will be on a completely different topic, it will none the less be extremely strong stuff.
We should not adjourn for the Christmas recess until we have had a thorough debate on the prospects for Britain's hill farmers. Last Thursday, without any warning or discussion, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the outcome of the autumn review on hill farming. He reported that there had been a recovery of hill farm incomes. Although that is acknowledged, the recovery is nothing like as good


as he suggested. As a consequence of that recovery, he announced a 26 per cent. cut in hill livestock compensation paid to sheep farmers in less-favoured areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has already said that that is disgraceful. I propose to use the two adjectives "shabby" and "despicable". Not only does it threaten to put hill farmers out of business but it threatens the future of our upland landscape, much of which lies in national parks. No one should doubt the seriousness of the situation.
If one tours our upland areas, one sees empty farms and farm properties where farmers and their families have given up because they cannot make a living. The proposed cut is unprecedented. It will return hill farmers' incomes to those of 10 years ago. A typical hill farmer in my constituency—I dare say that it applies right across the country—with some 750 ewes would lose £1,500. Farms with larger flocks are already curbed by unfavourable treatment from the European Community because they suffer from headage limits.
There have been some encouraging signs of income recovery. The prices paid for store lambs went up this year and a little last year but that must be put in perspective. The recovery is from incomes that were at their lowest since the war. In real terms, incomes are still significantly less than they were five or six years ago when I was first elected to the House, and we thought that they were in crisis then. They remain in crisis and will be in even bigger crisis if the cuts go ahead.
Many hill farmers are struggling to survive. They have been holding on, hoping for better times. Now, just as matters look a little brighter, they face a cut in support that will knock them back to where they were just two years ago. It is extraordinary that Ministers recognised the fact that hill farmers needed help. Those farmers were grateful for much-needed increases in the ewe premium and the introduction of advance-stage payments of that premium.
At a stroke, all the good work of the past two or three years will be undermined, eroded, and wiped out. It is ludicrous that the cut in support proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food competes with schemes such as the Department of the Environment's stewardship scheme, which recognises how impossible it is for some farmers to make a decent living. Some two or three years ago, the North York Moors national park introduced a scheme based entirely on the fact that government at whatever level, whether local or national, recognised the severe difficulties of marginal hill farming and its importance to the fabric of the upland districts.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has been given the opportunity to raise an important issue that burst on us over this past weekend, after the leakage of an announcement that was intended to be made as we went away for the Christmas recess. Is my hon. Friend aware that Exmoor in my constituency is about to become or has become an environmentally sensitive area and that the Ministry's press release refers to over-grazing? Surely that is not the way to tackle the problem of over-grazing, if there is such a problem.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and speaks of his experience, which is spot on and on which other hon. Members should reflect. In the press release announcing the cut in hill livestock compensatory allowance, the Ministry said that there would be further

measures to prevent over-grazing. The combination of the two factors—the cut in hill livestock compensatory allowance and the measures to prevent over-grazing—will put out of business the very farmers whom we are supposed to be in the business of helping.
Let us be clear about the sort of people and families involved. We can forget the urban city dweller's view of the fat cat farmer. Families in such farms struggle to make ends meet. When I visited them, as I like to do during our recesses and intend to do over the Christmas recess, I am always deeply moved at the way in which they go about their business. They do not expect much out of life, and they look on hill farming as a way of life. Anyone who knows the North York Moors national park will know that it is probably one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I see that my hon. Friend wants to tell us about the Peak district.

Mr. Winterton: I come from Cheshire, where the Peak park plays a major role. My constituency includes many hill farmers who cannot make an income from their farming, so they take on outside activities such as contract work and driving to make ends meet and to keep their families.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many farmers exist by successfully claiming family income supplement. if the HLCA payments are reduced, the social security budget will rise—it will rise even more if farms are put out of business as a result of the cuts.
I believe that the decision must be reconsidered. What future can there be for hill farmers if, every time things get better, the Ministry says, "Now things look brighter we shall cut the special help that we have always recognised you need and knock you back on the floor"? What a prospect for the farmers—the proposal will mean kicking men who are struggling to get off the floor, which is precisely how hill farmers in my constituency are viewing it.
How much money will the proposal save? I am told that the mean decision will save £20 million. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a £1 billion package for the coal mining districts a few weeks ago, which I fully support. However, hill farming is in just as much of a crisis as the coal industry. It is time that we had a thorough, open review, not a behind-closed-doors decision by the Minister whereby he issues a press release stating that he has had a review and made a decision.
We should consider the figures. What sort of income levels should we expect hill farmers to achieve? What sort of reasonable income should they be able to earn from hill farming? What is the importance of hill farming to the overall structure of the sheep industry, one of the more successful parts of British agriculture—with 27 per cent. of the EC regime in sheep meat and an increasing volume of exports? Farmers are doing better, partly because of that increase in exports. We want to improve our balance of trade in food and foodstuffs, and the sheep industry is already helping us to do so.
A recovery in prices has helped the entire sheep sector. If the cuts go ahead, the gap between the hard-pressed hill farmer and the rest of the specialist sheep sector will widen. However, the Minister concluded that the HLCA rates are


now greater than necessary to compensate for the permanent natural handicaps of farming in those regions. That is totally illogical. Those permanent handicaps have not altered simply because there has been an improvement in the cycle. All agriculture sectors are cyclical, and the cycle of sheep prices will again turn down. If it does so this winter, and the cuts go ahead, how on earth will some of our sheep farmers be able to afford to feed their sheep flocks throughout what is already proving to be a wet and expensive winter?
I have represented the constituency of Ryedale in the House for the past five and a half years and, when it comes to issues relating to the local economy, I can think of nothing that has been of greater on-going concern to me than the future of hill farmers. They need extra support, not cuts. It is time that we had a thorough debate on their future so that we can press my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House and to tell us why the Ministry is going ahead with such a mean and spiteful cut in support at such a difficult time.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I do not intend to detain the House long. When the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I make common cause, it should at least attract the attention of most other hon. Members. We do not normally find ourselves in the same lobby, but what is happening now with the proposed merger of the Crewe and Macclesfield health authorities is totally unacceptable.
It is important to realise that Sir Donald Wilson was a political appointment. Despite the clear views of my constituents, the creation of health trusts has been pushed ahead, with little concern for the interests of either the patients or those working in the national health service. Now, Sir Donald Wilson has gone too far. It is not in his control to appoint whomever he wishes, when he wishes, where he wishes, irrespective of the interests of those who will be affected, without the Secretary of State taking a clear and firm line. There should be an immediate declaration from the Department of Health that there is to be an independent inquiry into the management of our regional hospital authority.
For far too long, the creation of trusts has meant that employees have created trusts and not only laid down the terms and conditions of the new trusts but often determined the budgets and then gone on to become chief officers of the trusts that they were, supposedly, setting up. We now have a plain case of someone overriding all the interests of open government—of which this Government are so proud—and blatantly appointing someone within the organisation who was herself in the process of creating a short list. She added her own name to it and became the chief executive.
That is not a matter of party politics—it is unacceptable for anyone to behave in that way. That is certainly not in the interests of the NHS or of a Government who think that they want these crazy trusts. It is impossible to obtain accurate information from the trust in my area, but we know that it is overspent every year. Coopers and Lybrand has prepared internal reports which have not been

released, and the trust is to be £1.29 million overspent again this year—it will have to fiddle the figures to make them look good.
We also know that certain people have lost their tenure of office and have gone off having been paid large sums as compensation. In an open inquiry, many facts would come out—for instance, about the way the region is run—and those facts would give pause to many, including many Conservative Members.
I speak with real feeling about what is happening. No public office should be run as the fiefdom of one political party or one political master, yet that is what is happening in the Crewe and Nantwich and Macclesfield area, and it is wholly unacceptable.

8 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: I believe that we should scrutinise the governance of Scotland in some depth before the House rises for the Christmas recess. The Maastricht treaty, when linked to the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome, will have given away massive powers to Europe—away from this Westminster Parliament and will have created a legal unitary structure known as the union. That means that this Parliament will have many areas of responsibility removed from it. In other words, it will be bypassed.
The consequence for Scotland will be that the cement that binds the United Kingdom together will be fatally weakened. That, I fear, will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I suggest that the cement that binds the United Kingdom consists of the monarchy, the Westminster Parliament, the unwritten constitution and British citizenship. Sad to say, because of recent events the monarchy is under great strain and has been badly weakened; while the giving away of real powers, financial and political, to Europe means that Westminster Members will not be able to ask questions on behalf of their constituents about matters that will be dealt with by unelected bankers or the people of Brussels.
The free-to-constituents-service given by Members of this Parliament—the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution—and the right of constituency Members to have questions on behalf of their constituents answered will have been bypassed. For many Scots, redress in the future will be via the European Court, where only the wealthy can be sure of justice. In time, I believe that the Westminster Parliament will be reduced to the administrative and executive level of a medium-sized state in the United States. How long will the Scots tolerate that, and what will they feel about what has been done to the Union established in 1707?
I remind the House that Maastricht creates a legal entity, a unitary European state called the union. Everyone will be a citizen of that union, and the citizen's duty to the union is to be reviewed and revised every three years. That could mean that young Scots can look forward to the possibility, under European foreign and defence policy, of conscription into a future European army. All that makes me believe that following a Conservative victory at the next general election—I expect there to be one—all it will take is for 37 of Scotland's nationalist and crypto-nationalist Opposition Members, many of whom paraded in Edinburgh on Saturday last, to decide to sit in Edinburgh and call themselves the Scottish parliament. Their legal right to do that is sustainable, because


Scotland's parliament was not dissolved in 1707: it was merely prorogued. No constitutional Act on the statute book provides for the means to break up the United Kingdom, and I suggest that in the absence of such an Act those 37 Members will be in a strong position.
I also suggest that the weakening of Westminster's powers in favour of Europe's powers will make Scottish independence, inside or outside Europe, a real possibility—perhaps even a probability because Scots will quite properly question the wisdom of remaining within a union that can no longer deliver the benefits of the Union. As a Unionist, I want that Union to continue. I articulate my concerns tonight because while we have been concentrating on making Europe work we may well have been taking actions that mean that the United Kingdom will no longer work.
This is why I shall continue to oppose the Maastricht Bill. We urgently need a debate in Government time in which we may discuss the governance of Scotland.

Mr. Barry Jones: I will not follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) except to tell him that, in the 16th century, Wales was savagely annexed. There was no Parliament then, and it was not prorogued.
There is a gathering crisis in the steel industry in Europe, and the Government appear not to wish to know about it. It is already affecting Britain and British Steel. The former communist states of eastern Europe, in a desperate search for currency, are efficiently dumping the steel that they make in western Europe. British Steel has already cut its production targets by 20 per cent. and has signalled a £51 million loss. That shows how serious the situation is. I want the Government to do something about it and to give a lead.
I should also like to mention the aerospace industry. The European airbus project received a severe blow last week, when an order for 74 aircraft was cancelled. That means that, throughout western Europe, there are likely to be grave employment consequences. I should like the Government to come to the House and explain what they believe the consequences for Britain will be; 7,000 workers here are engaged in making the airbus.
Workers in my constituency make steel, and they make the wings of the airbus. I am proud of Shotton steelworks and its contribution. It is world class. The aerospace factory at Broughton employs 4,000 and has a magnificent record too. I should like to hear some clear answers from the Government tonight about these two industries.
In my constituency, 3,000 people are out of work. More than 700 of them are long-term unemployed. I am deeply worried about the Government's review of the assisted area status map of Britain. I believe that the Government plan to take assisted status away from my constituency. I warn them not to do so. The unemployment figures there are serious, and the long-term implications for steel and aerospace could be even more serious. The Government must promise not to tamper with the assisted area map.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Because of the pressure of time, I shall confine the bulk of my remarks to topics raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that Conservative Members will realise that I intend them no discourtesy by so doing.
I should like, however, to refer briefly first to the speeches by the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Corby (Mr. Powell). They spoke for the whole House when they described the terrible plight of the people of the former Yugoslavia and asked us to consider not just what more we can do to help but the position of our own troops, who are currently doing their best in that area. Committing troops to any conflict is, of course, a serious step, and the whole House will be mindful of the welfare of British service men this Christmas, the task that we have set them, and the difficult circumstances in which they are expected to undertake it.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). Does he share my anger at the written response by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, which clearly stated and placed on record that our troops are to receive a cut in their allowances while on active service under the United Nations in Bosnia?

Mr. Brown: The thoughts of us all are with our service personnel this Christmas. No one wants to see them done an injustice—particularly not at this time, and in the very difficult circumstances that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South clearly described. I hope that the Leader of the House will have something satisfactory to say on my hon. Friend's point.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) also commands widespread support for his remarks about war crimes, not just in the House but throughout the country and the international community. Similar points are made on the other side of the Atlantic, and I hope that the Serbs will take careful note of the direction and speed in which international opinion is moving.
I thought that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) would also secure widespread support in all parts of the House. As we have come to expect, my right hon. Friend spoke for the disabled and for the severely disabled, and raised the issue of the independent living fund and its successor funding arrangements. Fortunately, the Leader of the House has some specific expertise in that matter, and I hope that, when he sums up, he will be able to say something that satisfies my right hon. Friend.
It is Christmas, and it is nice to see parties on both sides of the House coming together to raise important matters. Although I am summing up for the Official Opposition, perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will not find it entirely inappropriate if I speak on his behalf as well. He has made common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in describing the regime now operated by Sir Donald Wilson—himself a political appointee—in the areas in which both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield outlined, and my hon. Friend confirmed, that Sir Donald has been behaving in an arbitrary manner. My hon. Friend specifically called


for an independent inquiry into the management of trusts in the area, and I formally support that request from this Dispatch Box. The circumstances outlined are clearly unacceptable in any form of public administration. It is not a question of party politics but a straightforward stand against corruption. I hope that the call for an independent inquiry into the affairs of the health authority in question will be carefully noted by the Leader of the House, and that he will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health.
It will not come as a surprise to anyone who follows the affairs of the House that Labour Members have spoken about employment in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn) raised the question of job losses at Marconi, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of GEC. He commands my sympathy, because I witnessed a similar closure—that of the Marconi factory in Gateshead, next to my own constituency—in similar circumstances only a few years ago. GEC operates in a ruthless way in such matters. I, like many others, would like to see some of the huge surpluses over which GEC's management preside put back into British industry, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in a brief intervention, declared his support for the 4,000 airbus workers in his constituency, who could not be better represented in the House. My hon. Friend spoke also of the Shotton steelworks and of its high quality products. He referred to assisted area status. In the circumstances that currently obtain in this country, the Government are wrong to consider removing assisted area status from any community.
One of the great tragedies of the current slump is that, when recovery eventually occurs, our manufacturing base may be so eroded that we are unable to take advantage of it. At the depth of the present slump, we still have a balance of payments deficit rather than a surplus, which suggests a fundamental weakness with the British economy. The Government should be trying to address that problem rather than hope that, sooner or later, we will float through the slump thanks to market forces and world circumstances alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) rightly and movingly described the plight of the people of Kashmir. He called for self-determination, and graphically outlined the unsuitability of military occupation as a form of government for that area. I took his remarks very much to heart; they as much as any will condition my thoughts over Christmas. I am looking forward to Christmas, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members are, but this evening we learned of some very sombre causes for concern from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is much for us to reflect upon, and for the Government to respond to.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House will understand when I say at once that it is unlikely that in the 10 minutes left to me I shall be able to comment fully and in detail on every speech. I begin by making it clear to those right hon. and hon. Members to whom I am unable

to respond as fully as I should like this evening, or who asked for specific answers for which I shall have to draw on information that I may not have with me, that I will ensure, in one way or another, that their concerns are reflected in my communications to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and that I will endeavour to make a specific response in writing or in some other appropriate way.
I acknowledge the points made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), to whom I hope to address some points before I sit down, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn), concerning the employment situation in his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who spoke about Argentina and the Falklands fisheries, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who made an impassioned speech about his experiences in Kashmir, which I carefully noted, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), whose constituency is not far from my own frontiers, and which I visited during my hon. Friend's successful general election campaign.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) expressed concern about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I shall bring the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) firmly to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—although my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend sought to address many of those concerns in his recent statement, a copy of which I have with me.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) joined my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and we heard also the interesting constitutional observations—as I think I might most safely describe them—of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Finally, we return to the perceived economic concerns of parts of Wales with the remarks of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about steel and assisted area status—which were echoed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) speaking from the Labour Front Bench. I hope to return to some of those issues; first, however, let me deal with a subject that I have not yet mentioned.
Adjournment debates are often light-hearted, and today's debate has had its light-hearted moments. More often than not, however, such debates consist of a succession of constituency problems which, although important to the areas involved, do not give rise to discussions as wide ranging as some of those in which we engage. Perhaps the most striking single feature of today's debate has been the impressive quality of the speeches— particularly, but by no means only, those dealing with Bosnia. Another striking feature has been the fact that almost 50 per cent. of the debate has concerned important issues of foreign affairs. My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Corby (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir. R. Johnston), made especially striking speeches about Bosnia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby was kind enough to acknowledge that I would be unlikely to be able to respond in detail to some of the points that he raised. I shall, however, undertake specifically to seek from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the information for which my hon. Friend asked about the commission of


United Nations experts appointed to deal with war crimes. As my hon. Friend will know, the British Government strongly share his concern, and deplore and condemn both ethnic cleansing and the other atrocities that are being alleged. The conclusions of the Edinburgh Council state, clearly and categorically:
Those responsible for all these crimes against humanitarian law by the different sides will be held personally accountable and brought to justice.
I accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought today to establish how that can be done. No doubt the questions that they have raised will be dealt with in other ways, not least by the United Nations. I hope, however, that we can all agree that that is a very clear-cut statement about the Community's attitude—an attitude which the British Government fully share.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby for acknowledging, in a speech that in other respects had a good deal in common with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire. South and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, that the question of involvement could not be approached quite as sanguinely as some—including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—appeared to suggest. He indicated, at the very least, some hesitation, and—like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South—he seemed to recognise that the terms of the presidency's conclusions generally from the Edinburgh Council represented a clear and striking statement of the vigour with which the problem is being approached by the British Government and, indeed, the Community as a whole. He also recognised that we are seeking to impose further pressure.
As the statement is long, I shall not quote all of it. It begins by acknowledging—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South—that
the tragedy in former Yugoslavia constitutes a serious threat to peace and stability in the region … the international community will not accept the acquisition of territory by force, nor accept the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina … the Community and its member states will take further steps to assist in tightening sanctions on the Danube, and cause for the rapid despatch of observers to the border between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina … states its belief that the United Nations Security Council should examine the situation in respect of the United Nations Security Council resolution 786, the no fly zone resolution, that the UN security council should examine the situation in the light of operative paragraph 6 of that resolution.
After referring to the ministerial-level meeting of the steering committee of the international conference—the follow-up to the London conference which is due to take place on 16 December, and which will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the statement continues:
The European Council, which brings together the Heads of State and of Government of countries which are profoundly peace loving, will continue to give priority to political means in order to resolve the crisis in Yugoslavia. But, given the gravity of this tragic situation, it has no choice but to promote and participate in further initiatives which the international community may be obliged to undertake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber made it clear that they would have liked the statement to go further. Nevertheless, it is a firm and clear statement that the problem is not being ignored by either the British Government or the Community as a whole. The Government and the Community are not refusing to consider other action if the difficulties are not resolved in a way that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend would

like. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that the terms of the statement have given him some encouragement during the week.

Sir Russell Johnston: None of that enables anything to be done to stop the acquisition of land in Bosnia, by force, by Bosnian Serbs.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 17th December, do adjourn until Monday 11th January.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

WORKS INTERFERING WITH NAVIGATION

That the draft Transport and Works (Descriptions of Works Interfering with Navigation) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.

GUIDED TRANSPORT MODES

That the draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANTS

That the draft Education Support Grants Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

COMPUTER PROGRAMS (COPYRIGHT)

That the draft Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).

BANANAS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8372/92, relating to organisation of the market in bananas; and supports the Government in its intention to secure measures which enable the Community to fulfil all its international trading commitments, whilst also taking account of consumer interests, the need for budgetary restraint, and the protection of access by ACP and EC producers to European Community markets.

DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6718/92 + COR 1 and the supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Overseas Development Administration on 4th December, relating to


development co-operation policy in the run-up to the year 2000; and welcomes the declaration made at the Development Council on 18th November, which takes full account of United Kingdom interests in this field.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Nuclear Power (North-west)

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the nuclear industry and its importance to the north-west. It is timely, not only because of the current energy review but because my hon. Friend the Minister visited Sellafield today. I trust that his visit was successful and was not completely curtailed by the need to return to the debate; I hope that we will soon see the start of the operation at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant as that plant is vital to employment in Cumbria and will make an important contribution to our balance of payments over the next 10 years. It cost £1·85 billion to build, and £1·6 billion of that money came from abroad. When it is up and running, it will result in 2,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly.
Until now, much of the public debate on the energy review has been about coal, with only passing references to gas and nuclear power, most of which have not been complimentary. Those who want to see more coal and less gas burnt use the limited nature of gas reserves as a reason, forgetting, in the process, that coal reserves, too, are finite and will become increasingly more expensive to mine as time goes on. That contrasts with the plentiful supplies of nuclear fuel available in Britain into the next century and beyond. We have rightly invested considerable sums in recycling schemes to ensure that that will be the case. Strangely, though, schemes that, if applied to any other industrial process, would be widely applauded by environmentalists are condemned by them in this case. The debate associated with the review has also involved grossly inflated costings for nuclear energy.
It is of considerable concern to many in the north-west that the review has taken the course that it has. The north-west can claim to have been involved at the start of the nuclear age in the early 1950s and now, 40 years later, the region still employs the vast majority of people involved in the nuclear industry. Well over 100,000 people in the north-west are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the region's four nuclear power stations—which have a generating capacity of more than 3,000 MW each year—in its production and reprocessing installations for nuclear fuel and in its research and development activities. Many of the jobs are highly skilled and the technology is very advanced.
In my opinion, those facts alone warrant a closer look at the industry than has so far been evident in the review. If employment is one of the criteria for deciding the number of coal mines that will remain open, we must remember that any resulting redundancies in the nuclear industry will simply transfer unemployment from one region to another. If that happens, it is likely that the redundancy payments provided to those involved in the nuclear industry will be less than those provided to coal miners—to say nothing of the difficulty that former nuclear workers will have in finding employment in some of the more remote locations in the north-west which have nuclear installations, such as Sellafield.
If the development of more efficient and cleaner technology for generating electricity is an important consideration for the review, the nuclear industry's record is impressive. It would be a grave error if we reduced our

commitment to the nuclear industry—one of our remaining world-class industries—as the loss of engineering skills alone would be most damaging.
Those arguments, compelling in themselves, essentially support the main economic argument for nuclear power. Those who use jobs, rather than economics, as their leading argument, including some—I stress "some"—in the coal mining industry, make people highly suspicious about the true cost of coal. No one denies that the cheapest electricity on the grid today is nuclear power, at between 1·2p and 1·4p per kWh. Similarly, no one denies that, despite its previous problems, the industry's nuclear power stations now produce a larger contribution to our energy needs—at around 22 per cent. of electricity generated—than ever before. Last week was a record week in itself for the production of electricity by the nuclear industry. For the first time, more than 8,100 MW was produced, and our power stations are now some of the most efficient in the world when it comes to load factors.
The real argument is not about running costs but about the other costs of nuclear power. Although the cost of building nuclear power stations is high, much of that cost has already been written off because of the length of time for which Magnox stations have been operating; that applies equally to coal-fired power stations. Therefore, the fairest way of comparing the two is through their running costs. As I said, at 1·2p to 1·4p per kWh, nuclear power is almost twice as cheap as coal, at between 2·8p and 3p per kWh.
If capital costs are taken into account, as they will be with electricity from Sizewell B and, it is to be hoped, Sizewell C, the figure will be between 3p per kWh and 3·9p per kWh for nuclear stations, which compares favourably with that for the new combined cycle gas-powered stations, in respect of which capital costs are taken into account at the outset. The figure for new coal-fired power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment fitted is well above those figures. Indeed, retrofitting existing coal-fired power stations with FGD equipment makes coal even more uncompetitive, adding 0·5p per kWh to the cost.

Mr. William O'Brien: On four occasions, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the coal industry and its effects on power generation. The last thing that I want to do is to cross swords with him over the coal and nuclear industries, but will he explain what the cost will be of demolishing and clearing away nuclear power stations that no longer serve any useful purpose? Will he deal with that in his speech?

Mr. Mans: I most certainly will; I am coming to that very point now.
The real problem over costs arises when one is discussing the non-fossil fuel levy. I hope that what I have to say will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). First, that levy is not solely for the nuclear industry. It can be used in respect of renewables too, and could be regarded as a first stab at a carbon tax. In the case of nuclear power, it is used to offset decommissioning costs or, more specifically, the rather vague estimates of what they are likely to be.
It is becoming clear that those costs are not likely to be as great as first thought. The experience of Berkeley—the first Magnox station to initiate decommissioning—shows that the estimates were rather higher than the actual costs.


Whatever the costs turn out to be, however, it makes a great deal of economic sense to spread them over as long a period as possible by keeping Magnox stations operating for as long as possible. If the Magnox stations are shut down prematurely, there will be less money in the reserves to cater for their decommissioning. If we keep them going for longer, we shall not only get cheaper power on to the grid but make better provision for decommissioning costs.
What is debatable, however, is whether nuclear generators should be saddled with the costs at all. None of the fossil fuel generators have to make provision for their back-end costs—clearing up contaminated land and slag heaps, as well as meeting subsidence claims in the case of coal and dismantling redundant rigs around our coasts in the case of gas, all of which are highly expensive operations. Surely it is only fair—

Mr. Martin O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned gas for the first time in his remarks. Perhaps we are having an unrealistic battle between the nuclear and coal industries. Gas has a role to play, and it would be less than fair if he ignored that fact or failed to pay attention to the fact that, in the calculation of coal prices for the grid, many of the start-up costs for gas are not being properly addressed. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to refer to that or does he intend to restrict the debate to the relative merits of the nuclear and coal industries? If the latter is the case, he will render rather arid and narrow a debate that could have provided the north-west with a crucible in which to melt a number of materials.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman may have heard me refer to gas on two previous occasions; but the majority of my remarks will be aimed at the nuclear industry, simply because I feel that, in the debate on the review so far, an awful lot of attention has been paid to the coal industry and not enough to the nuclear industry. I sincerely hope that other contributions will include further references to the gas industry. I shall refer to gas generation on a couple of occasions but not at great length.
Surely it is only fair that, if Nuclear Electric is to provide for its decommissioning costs, as I have already said, so should everyone else. If there was ever an unlevel playing field, this must be it. Indeed, it is made even more unlevel by the fact that Nuclear Electric inherited from the Central Electricity Generating Board £10·5 billion-worth of liabilities whereas, since 1982, the coal industry has received £14·5 billion of subsidy from the taxpayer.
I have left until last the oddest aspect of the debate. It could be termed the dog that did not bark—namely, the environmental aspects of generating electricity. As a former member of the Select Committee on the Environment, I am, to say the least, surprised at the lack of concern shown by organisations such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and, indeed, the Campaign for Clean Air at the prospect of continuing use of coal-fired power stations and the huge environmental damage that that could inflict on the atmosphere through acid rain and carbon dioxide. The high sulphur content of British coal makes the former a particular problem, and I have already mentioned the high cost of fitting FGD devices.
Coal produces millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Indeed, we find a fair amount of carbon dioxide

emissions coming from gas-fired power stations as well. Nuclear installations, however, produce hardly any carbon dioxide at all. If the industry is having to pay for the possible future environmental problems posed by decommissioning nuclear power stations, surely it should also pay for the environmental damage being done by coal and gas-fired power stations right now.
The only explanation for the uncharacteristic low-key response of environmental groups on the subject is either that they have been nobbled by Arthur Scargill and place the preservation of coal-miners' jobs above the need to improve the environment and above the jobs of workers in the nuclear industry or that they have allowed their anti-nuclear prejudice to override their desire to cut air pollution. Those organisations must come clean and decide whether they exist to destroy the nuclear industry because of its past association with nuclear weapons or whether they are genuine in their wish to improve the environment above all else. Perhaps people such as Jonathan Porritt should consider more closely the views of probably the most respected environmentalist alive today, Professor James Lovelock, who points out that carbon dioxide produced from coal in gas-fired stations is a real environmental problem, whereas nuclear energy is only a perceived one.
One distortion that is repeated by Greenpeace and others is the hazard to health posed by radiation from nuclear plants when people experience more than 10 times the maximum permitted level in nuclear installations if they live in an area which has high levels of radon from underlying rocks. Even more ironic is that if British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. wished to replace its power station at Calder Hall on the Sellafield nuclear site with a coal-fired one, it would not be permitted to do so by the nuclear inspectorate because of the higher than permitted levels of radiation in coal-fired power stations. Indeed, if the nuclear inspectorate were empowered to control levels of radiation in coal-fired power stations that are not on nuclear sites as well as those that are on nuclear sites, it might have to order the immediate shutting down of every coal-fired power station in the country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following my hon. Friend's argument very closely and I find myself in considerable sympathy with much of what he is saying. However, is he not going for overkill in his support for nuclear power and his hostility to coal in particular and, perhaps to a lesser extent, to gas? Is it not vital that we have a long-term secure energy policy in which nuclear power and coal have a major part to play? Does my hon. Friend also concede that gas burnt in power stations is very inefficient and, in the long term, quite expensive? We are depleting a finite resource, and we are not sure how much gas we have available.

Mr. Mans: I am in considerable agreement with my hon. Friend. I believe in a balanced energy policy. We have to gain our electricity from many different sources. Indeed, even under the original proposals that the Government put forward for the use of coal, we would still end up in 1995 producing 45 per cent. of our electricity from coal, 20 per cent. from gas and about 22 per cent. from nuclear power. I would certainly regard that as a balanced energy policy. However, we are discussing the review itself, and the review will obviously consider an increased coalburn.
We have to look very closely at the effects, both environmental and in terms of cost and jobs, of running down the nuclear industry when we do not need to do so. That 22 per cent. of the total nuclear energy consumed provides a fair amount—perhaps it might go up by a few more per cent.—and it provides an important contribution to a balanced energy programme.
My hon. Friend's final point related to the supply of gas, the supply of coal and, indeed, nuclear fuel. Coal, as well as gas, is finite. We have a considerably greater quantity of available nuclear fuel, and that gives us considerable security of supply. If I have over-emphasised the nuclear case, it is only to try to get the balance right as a result of the over-emphasis on coal in the debate and in the energy review to date.
Returning to what I was saying about the environmental effects of coal-fired power stations, particularly in relation to radiation discharges, Greenpeace and others must either admit that they have either over-emphasised the radiation risk in nuclear power plants or pay equal attention to the higher levels of radiation elsewhere.
Many of us in the north-west have no wish to see miners made redundant, but we do not want nuclear power workers to lose their jobs because of the present problems in the coal industry. It is important that the energy review clearly states the relative costs of different sources of energy in a fair way and fully takes into account the environmental benefits and disbenefits of nuclear energy, gas and coal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will deal with the point that has already been made a couple of times in the past few weeks about our commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and stabilising them to a specific figure by the year 2000, and that he will say whether the energy review will be carried out within those parameters. I hope that we will not be unable to meet those targets as a result of the energy review.
In the north-west, we believe that, if that is done and if there is a fair review, the nuclear industry will have a bright future, producing cheap clean power. I hope that, as a result of the debate, its case will not go unheard during the present energy review.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the hon. Member for Wye (Mr. Mans) for his well-constructed, well-informed speech and for taking the trouble to telephone me at home on Friday, after learning of his luck in the ballot, to invite me to contribute.
I shall concentrate on THORP in the light of a four-hour visit last year and in the light of seven official visits to Sellafield, an area in which I spent five years at a small school at Gosforth, when the parents of many of my friends worked at Drigg. I have real concern for the area. I should also like to associate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in every sense with much of what I shall say.
I should like to speak well of the Minister. He will recollect that, this year, he came to the annual dinner of Trade Unionists for Safe Nuclear Energy—TUSNE. He made what I described, moving the vote of thanks, as an excellent speech, and I am happy to repeat that praise in the House tonight. That speech greatly pleased Bill Morgan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and Gordon Lee, the Minister's hosts and the trade union

leaders who have done so much to change attitudes towards nuclear power in my party. I pay a public tribute to TUSNE.
The Minister will recollect that, during his speech, he pointed out that THORP was seen as crucial to the overall commercial relationship between Britain and Japan. That struck me in a most forceful way. THORP has made BNFL one of Britain's biggest yen earners. THORP already has secure orders worth £9 billion—more than half from overseas—and it is expected to attract a further £3 billion of foreign earnings, if overseas confidence is retained.
Even in a worst case scenario, THORP will make a £500 million profit in its first 10 years. If the Minister disagrees with any of those figures, he should say so in the House, because I believe that THORP will provide an economic benefit to the United Kingdom that is conservatively estimated at £900 million in 1992 money values, using an 8 per cent. discount rate.
The leading independent accountancy firm, Touche Ross, has examined with BNFL the economic value of THORP to the United Kingdom and it supports the estimate of £900 million.

Mr. William O'Brien: Rumours have been circulating about THORP. Are we assured that it will operate in the future? There has been some rumour that it will not provide the necessary facility for the disposal of waste as planned. Has my hon. Friend any information on that?

Mr. Dalyell: I heard the same rumours as my hon. Friend and, bluntly, I cancelled engagements in Scotland in order to be present at this debate, because I am greatly alarmed at them.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has many connections with the Yorkshire coalfield, and in no sense do I see this as a coal v. nuclear issue. I believe it involves the question of gas; here, I am in what Mill called the
deep slumber of a decided opinion.
I am against the use of gas, full stop, on the grounds that it represents the worst kind of short-termism and takes up the chemical feedstock of the future. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will go into those effects in more detail.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton that, if THORP were delayed for nine months before starting up, it would result in an overall loss of profit to BNFL of £108 million during its operational lifetime.
If THORP did not operate at all, there would be a potential loss of profits of more than £1 billion. THORP has cost £1·85 billion to build, around 90 per cent. of which was spent with British companies. It has been supported by £1·6 billion of inward investment from overseas customers. Do the Minister and his advisers accept that those figures are roughly right?
I have scrambled over much of that engineering marvel—for that is what it is—and any layman would be extremely impressed by the safety-conscious engineering that went into THORP.
It is also important to consider that THORP has employed 5,000 workers directly and sustained 10,000 jobs at the peak of construction. About 3,000 workers are currently employed in THORP, many in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member of Copeland, who has done so much to support the nuclear industry in Labour party circles and elsewhere.
I understand that THORP will directly employ 1,200 when operational for a minimum of 10 years, and probably for several decades. If THORP is given the go-ahead, it will directly sustain a further 900 jobs at Sellafield and 800 jobs, at least, in supplier companies. Are those figures acceptable to the Minister?
The supposedly difficult issue relates to the environment. The new discharge authorisation proposed by the Department of the Environment for the Sellafield site, and not just for THORP, is more restrictive than the existing one. That is completely contrary to the impression given by Greenpeace. The new authorisation will introduce a lower radiation dose limit for the critical group, those who are living near Sellafield who are most affected.
In its campaign, Greenpeace has singled out krypton 85 as its principle environmental argument to stop THORP from operating. Krypton 85 is an inert gas, mildly radioactive, which does not accumulate in the body or enter the food chain. In radiological terms, the annual effect of Krypton 85 emissions on the critical group is equivalent to drinking a glassful of mineral water a day, or eating a small packet of Brazil nuts once a year or spending an hour in Cornwall—a dangerous thing to do—where there are higher levels of natural background radiation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has emphasised the employment implications. Will he confirm that krypton does not harm sheep, which are another important source of employment in my area?

Mr. Dalyell: I spoke briefly on the telephone not only to BNFL but to a number of independent people, and my understanding is that krypton has no effect on what one might call the general Chernobyl problem.
I am not complacent about nuclear matters, because there is the enormous problem of what happens to ill-maintained power stations, which is why it is so important to have twinning arrangements with Kosloduy in Bulgaria, Smolensk and elsewhere. I pay tribute to James Hann, Robin Jeffrey and others in Scottish Nuclear who have developed such links, and to English Nuclear companies.
The maximum radiation dose to any member of the critical group of krypton 85 is one thousandth of the average dose to the individual in the United Kingdom from natural radiation. Claims by Greenpeace that krypton 85 will have a major effect on the climate have been dismissed by leading independent scientists.
The krypton 85 issue was dealt with fully at the THORP public inquiry. There is no new evidence to justify delay. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will recollect from our mutual happy days in the European Parliament—particularly, in my case, from my days on the Energy Committee—that these inquiries go into matters in great detail. It is frivolous to say that the inquiry does not matter.
On the contrary, the critical group will receive a radiation dose from krypton 85 that is one thirtieth of that estimated at the time that evidence was given to the inquiry. Nevertheless, provision has been made in THORP for back-fitting krypton removal equipment should a viable technique become available. Those genuinely keen on the environment should oppose money being wasted on the phoney problem of krypton 85, and rather urge that it

is spent on programmes that will genuinely help the environment and the community—energy efficiency, schools and hospitals. The plant would cost well over £50 million excluding operating costs.
Time is limited, and the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has confined the debate to the north-west, but the Minister knows that no speech from me on the subject would be complete without deep criticism of the Government on a related matter—Dounreay. This is the worst example of short-termism. I gather from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), following our recent interventions on the Minister's statement, that the industry would have been prepared to provide much more money if the Government had been prepared to ask. There seems to have been a negative reaction from the Government.
In 2020, when I shall probably be kicking up daisies but the Minister and others may be here, there will be a feeling that we made a terrible mistake in 1992, because the idea that development into physics can be mothballed is unrealistic. We shall have to go to the French or Japanese. I beg the Government to think that they might be wrong about Dounreay, and to think and think again.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) came first in the ballot, because it gives us an opportunity to air our views on the nuclear industry at a time when a general review of energy supplies is being conducted. So far, the whole debate has been unbalanced by the concentration on the coal industry, so it is useful for us to redress the balance.
Although I do not have a single mine in my constituency, when the announcement was made in October, I received more than 200 letters from constituents asking that the Government think again. When I heard the announcement, I thought that I would be inundated with letters, and I was not wrong. We all welcome the announcement of the review, and eagerly await its findings next year.
The Government's energy policy based on diversity and security of supply and economy of cost, has served the country well. It has directly benefited consumers in their own bills and indirectly benefited industry in the cheap supply of electricity. My plea is that the Government continue that policy, which has served us so well. The reason for that plea is that any change in energy policy will have its costs.
Some people argue that coal is more expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre stated that nuclear power is less expensive, but it depends on the side of the argument from which one sets out and the statistics one uses to back up one's case. I have heard various arguments in the past few months from people trying to convince me that their particular fuel—coal, gas or nuclear power—is cheaper than the others. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy well in the next few months as he reviews the case.
We need a balanced debate on a balanced fuel policy. A sudden move from nuclear-powered energy will prove extremely expensive. Let us consider the diversity argument alone. After the Organisation of Petroleum


Exporting Countries caused the price of oil to escalate in 1973, France reconsidered its fuel policy, and turned to nuclear power immediately. It now has 75 per cent. reliance on the nuclear power industry. Britain has also suffered from escalating prices and had difficulty in getting coal supplies, especially during the strikes of the 1970s, but not so much during the 1980s. We do not want to rely on a single source of fuel, whether it be coal, gas or nuclear power. We need a diverse supply of fuels.
If we continue the "dash for gas", we shall have a long time in which to regret that decision. Several questions need to be answered, such as, how long will the supplies of gas last? I have heard various estimates, ranging from 20 years upwards, but we do not know. Once we have started the dash for gas, the price of gas will escalate, which will put out of synch all the claims about how cheap gas is. There is only one way for the price of gas to go and that is up, as demand for it increases. We should also consider the future exploration and extraction costs of gas.
Several hon. Members have mentioned our skilled work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said that about 100,000 people in the north-west were associated within the nuclear industry, so we have many skilled people working at the frontiers of research and development. I believe that we would be loth to turn our backs on their skills. If we export their skills now, we shall import the fruits of that policy in the future, which would be extremely expensive.
It has been said that our becoming reliant on importing fuels from abroad will have a regrettable effect on our balance of payments. It has been estimated that the cost for 1993–94 might be about £800 million, so that: figure must be put into the melting pot.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is developing an excellent case for the nuclear industry. Can he say how much it is now costing us to import French nuclear fuel? Does he agree that it would be sensible for us to build on our existing nuclear industry and provide our own nuclear fuel instead of buying it from the French?

Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's question. I believe that it costs us about £450 million a year.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not only the cost of the fuel which is important. We have no control over the safety precautions of the French, but we have absolute control over our own, and the wind blows our way.

Mr. Evans: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. When considering our energy policy, we must take both comments into account. We need diversity and security of supply. Our nuclear industry has an excellent safety record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has pointed out, if there is a problem in a nuclear plant in another country, we may suffer if the wind blows in our direction. We must have as much control as possible over our own destiny.
As other hon. Members have said, we must be extremely cautious about some of the environmental arguments against the nuclear industry. The industry seems to have had an extremely bad press. The advantage of the nuclear industry for the environment is that it produces no sulphur dioxide, no nitrogen oxide and no carbon dioxide. We must look at the other side of the equation as part of a balanced argument. We should not

be wholly against gas or coal, and we should not be only pro-nuclear. We must widen the argument and realise that there are environmental factors on the side of the nuclear industry.
All the gases I mentioned contribute to acid rain and to the greenhouse effect. Worldwide, the nuclear industry has prevented more than 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, which fossil fuel burning would have produced, from going into the atmosphere. That fact must also be recognised.
I said that the nuclear industry had had a bad press. That may be because of its defence uses and its military capability. It seems that the connotations of the word "nuclear" have made many people fearful, and I recognise that. However, the nuclear industry must be one of the most regulated industries in the country. It is not only self-regulated, but regulated by the Government at several levels. European directives and European legislation regulate the industry. The local authorities certainly regulate it, and several lobby groups watch carefully what goes on in the industry.
It seems that these days, anyone with a camcorder can make a programme. At present, two people are making a programme for Channel 4 on the nuclear industry in which they plan to say how bad and dangerous it is. We must consider the other side of the question. Good news means no news for television. A position is taken at the beginning to give the industry a bad name for ever.
We must have a balanced debate and we must give it more air. The nuclear industry has provided us with security, it has provided us with research and development, and it has provided us with high-technology jobs. It has provided us with competition which has had a downward pressure on prices.
I wish Labour Members well who support the nuclear industry and a balanced fuel approach to our energy needs in trying to persuade some of their hon. Friends to change Labour's policy on the nuclear industry. It is important that they are given as much support as possible so that we can carry on with a diversity of supply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has said that the nuclear industry has been important for the north-west, and he is right. It has also been important for the country generally. It is time that its importance was recognised, and it is time that the hard work of the dedicated people who work in the industry was given the recognition it deserves.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It shows the impartiality of the Chair, in view of our exchanges during points of order last Friday.
I spent the first third of my working life in geology, albeit at a junior level, and I worked with radiation for a substantial period. I think that I have some expertise that it might be worth bringing to our debate.
I remind the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who argued in favour of a balanced energy policy —an argument with which the Opposition agree—of a point I made to the Minister a few days ago in the House. The workers in the nuclear industry and the trade unions on behalf of those workers have argued in favour of maintaining our coal mining industry. That is particularly


important, because everyone with practical experience of the energy industry realises the relevance of a balanced policy.
Reference has been made to coal, oil, gas and, fleetingly, renewables. Gas is a particularly interesting fuel. One aspect of its use which has not been referred to so far is its vital importance to the chemical sector as a feedstock. I have received a letter from the managing director of a major British company which manufactures fertiliser in my constituency. He pleaded with me to support the coal mining case. Quite simply, he argued that the Government's policy would drive up the price of gas, which would undermine his business, as it would drive up the price of its feedstock. He did not—and I would not—argue against the use of gas as part of a balanced policy because clearly, from time to time, gas could be extremely useful when there is a need to move very quickly from low levels of energy usage to high levels of energy usage.
In relation to the debate, there are some important employment aspects in the north-west. British Nuclear Fuels plc employs almost 16,000 people in the United Kingdom, all bar 650 of whom are located in the north-west of England. Seven thousand people and an equal number of contractors are employed at Sellafield, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred. Clearly, the nuclear industry generally and BNFL in particular ensure that the north-west is home to a large number of highly trained personnel.
Earlier this year, I raised the impact of the decision to split the business of BNFL in my constituency between a unit entitled URENCO and BNFL. The dominant part of BNFL's activity was the rundown of the acitivity on the site primarily engaged in the development of weapons grade material. Clearly all hon. Members welcome the fact that such material is no longer required.
However, the skill level on that site still runs the risk of being unnecessarily dissipated. There are enormous skills on the site. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley stressed the high level of engineering skills in the industry. It is a criminal waste of talent to allow those skills to be dissipated. Although I understand that the issue crosses ministerial responsibilities, I commend to the Minister for Energy the report about diversification produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. That aspect of the nuclear industry must be considered in relation to the report.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if some of the skills were lost, they would not be lost just in the nuclear industry? Some of the skills would be exported abroad. While we would lose them, other countries—perhaps our competitors—would gain from those skills.

Mr. Miller: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a brain drain, and we also lose a huge local engineering base.
In my constituency, which has a high concentration of petrochemical companies, there is a huge demand for welding skills. Hon. Members who are participating in the debate will be aware that the welding skills of British Nuclear Fuels are at a high level. It seems to be a criminal

waste simply to dissipate those skills and not use them, crossing over the frontiers of the energy industry. We should not compartmentalise the debate or the industry.
The United Kingdom needs a balanced energy policy. The job losses that could occur, which have been referred to by my hon. Friends, and those which have occurred will have an enormous knock-on affect. Invariably, when job losses are associated with high skill activities, the knock-on impact to supply companies and through the chain in our economy is significant. I urge the Government to take urgent action to ensure that the changes which are currently taking place in the nuclear supply industry are dealt with in a way which ensures that there is no loss of our skill base, and which continues to promote the importance of gas in the context of a balanced policy.
Earlier in the debate, references were made to radon, and comparative arguments were made about safety in Cornwall and various other parts of the country. There are big gaps in our knowledge in some important fields. I urge the Government to undertake greater epidemiological studies so that debates about leukaemia clusters and the like can be conducted in a more rational environment—similarly, the debate about krypton, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). From time to time, I agree 100 per cent. with Greenpeace, but I fear that it is wrong on this issue. Its information is based on a misunderstanding of the particular isotopes.
We need a great deal more study and activity to ensure that public confidence is restored. We need a policy that takes into account the economics of such a policy, the environmental issues which have been referred to and other important aspects which are of national interest.
In considering this debate as part of the wider debate about future energy supply which is taking place in our society, I urge the Government to take cognisance of the view expressed—I come back to my first point—by the workers at British Nuclear Fuels. They support the continuation of the coal industry. They see it as part of a balanced supply debate, and that is in the best interests of the nation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The United Kingdom is good at deep-mined coal, the technology involved in it and the supply of equipment to that industry. We are also good, in international terms, at the nuclear industry and nuclear reprocessing. We now get the maximum economic benefit from our nuclear plants. I think that one of the unexpected successes in the Government's policy on fuel industries and the electricity generating industry in the past few years has been the pressure put on all sorts of people to produce safe efficiencies.
I should like to add one point to what has been a rational debate—I pay tribute to both sides of the House for their contributions to it. It is not worth trying to save lives at high expense if those lives are not likely to be lost. I use an example that has nothing to do with the nuclear industry. A debate has been going on in the letters page of The Economist. Someone pointed out that, if every baby carried on an aeroplane had its own seat, the cost of saving a life would be $2,500 million.
I believe that, in the nuclear industry, mainly because of public fallacies, people have been required to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to save lives that are not


at risk. I do not know whether I exaggerate by saying that, if my body was a by-product of the nuclear industry, it would not be allowed out into the atmosphere. I suspect that my natural radioactivity is about 10 times the level of that of a nuclear plant. Greenpeace would probably say that that was not exactly right.
When I was at the Department of Employment and was responsible for health and safety at work, public demands were being made that the Government should set levels of radiation emissions which were so far below the level of natural emissions, not only from the sun but from natural products of our geology, that it was laughable. People gain prominence as environmental and health campaigners by promoting such a policy, yet we accept the much greater risk when we ride a bike or motor bike, go for a walk or drive a car or travel in an aeroplane or train, which is so much safer. The politician in me boggles at the duplicity of some of those who retail ideas and fantasies as if they were facts.
If we were having a full-scale debate on energy we would start with energy conservation. Reducing the waste of energy is the fastest and cheapest way of cutting the amount that we have to generate. However, the date is not about energy in general but about the effect of the nuclear industry in the north-west. I pay tribute to the people in the north-west for all that they have done.
I hope that the THORP reprocessing plant will open. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put the point fairly. If any hon. Member has alternative views on the facts that the figures that he gave, I hope that he will give them to the House. On the facts and figures that the House has so far, there is every justification for THORP starting as soon as possible, fulfilling the contracts and turning nuclear reprocessing into a worthwhile industry for Britain, reprocessing both our own by-products of nuclear generation and those of others.
I should like to see Britain continue to produce between 20 and 40 per cent. of our electricity from coal. I cannot narrow it down much further, because we do not have sufficient information. I am not entirely against the use of gas for electricity generation. We must remember that during my lifetime the move from town gas to natural gas was associated with gas taking a dominant position in domestic heat generation. In effect, that is what a great deal of electricity generation is at second hand. The idea that we shall continue with the dash for gas and make it a stampede is false. I expect that in 25 years the known gas reserves will still be 25 years' supply. The regional electricity companies are not likely to put many more of their eggs into that basket because the effects of going for 15-year price contracts has had a sufficient impact on other sources of electricity.
I finish with a comment about not the north-west but south-east London. In a ward in my constituency I have unemployment running at about 60 per cent. If the cost of maintaining extra jobs in the mines runs at £100 million a month for 25,000 jobs I calculate that that is £4,000 per job per month.
In Woolwich, in the centre of the borough of Greenwich, £6 million a year for three years would make it possible to regenerate the royal arsenal site outside my constituency, where at one stage there were 70,000 jobs. That is now down to 1,000—equivalent to a pit. Those 1,000 jobs will be gone in one year. If we could have a tiny share of the money that is being discussed in the coal

review, we could reduce unemployment to 15 or 12 per cent. or the national average of about 10 per cent. It would make a great deal of difference.
In my constituency I also have tower blocks which were built in the past 25 years. Individuals, many on income support, many elderly and some one-parent families, have to pay £20 a week—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman produced an allusion in his first sentence, but he cannot continue to develop it.

Mr. Bottomley: If electricity from the nuclear plant in the north-west could be more competitive with gas, so that it costs my constituents about £4 per week to be warm, rather than £20 a week to be cold, the north-west will contribute to the welfare of people throughout the country. That is my second reason for contributing to the debate.

Mr. William O'Brien: I shall be brief, but I feel that I should contribute to the debate because the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) included in his remarks the present review of electricity generation and manning, and I appreciate the chance to make this brief intervention.
There has had to be an energy review because of the Government's policy of privatising electricity generation without making proper provision for all the means used to generate electricity and without establishing a fair playing field. Gas producers have a 15-year contract with the generators, but the coal industry has only a three to five-year contract, which makes it obvious that there is a difference between the treatment of the two contracts and some unfairness.
We have had to review the way in which electricity is produced because of the way in which the colleagues of the hon. Member for Wyre decided to close collieries. The announcement that 31 collieries would close immediately rightly generated the wrath of the people.
I wish that the hon. Member for Wyre had stayed on the subject of the impact of the nuclear industry in the north-west. He was the only Member to deride the coal industry. I would be prepared to listen to him if there were proof that electricity produced from nuclear power were cheaper than that produced from coal, but there has been no evidence of that. Coal prices have decreased during the past six or seven years, and there is evidence to show that the price of coal will continue to fall in coming years, so no one, either inside the House or outside it, can say that coal is not the cheapest way to provide energy in this country.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman says that coal is cheaper, but what are the prices? I suggested that electricity generated from nuclear power costs between 1·2p and 1·4p per kWh. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to give the figure for coal.

Mr. O'Brien: Reams of evidence have been produced in the House, outside it and in the Select Committee on Energy, and it is clear that in the long term, coal is the cheapest way to produce electricity in this country. Had the Government pursued the flue vent system being developed at Grimethorpe—a village that is being crucified because of colliery closure—energy could have been produced without resulting in emissions into the


atmosphere and the problems that they cause. We have to review energy production costs because the hon. Member for Wyre voted for the privatisation of electricity generation, which generated our problems. If he wants to search his conscience, he should think carefully about what he did in the past. We are in this position because of the Government's policy. Our coal is cheaper than the coal that we import and it will continue to be cheaper in the next century.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): indicated dissent.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister shakes his head, but I hope that he will take note of the evidence. We should support the coal industry, not kill it.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) had an opportunity to speak, because the debate would have been unbalanced had there not been a contribution from the voice of the coal industry. He made a number of points that needed to be made and I shall not go over them again.
It is customary to congratulate the hon. Member who is successful in securing a place in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. If I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on nothing else, I must congratulate him on the time at which we started this debate. Bitter experience in the House has shown that nothing is more miserable than getting up at 2 am or 3 am for a Consolidated Fund Bill debate. This debate is important and I understand why anyone with nuclear concerns—few hon. Members in the north-west are not concerned about the nuclear industry—would wish to raise the matter in this evening's debate.
We are preoccupied about three aspects of the industry: first, employment; secondly, the important question of THORP at Sellafield; and thirdly, both the energy review, about which much has been said—I hope to hear from the Minister about it, if not tonight then not too late in the new year—and the nuclear review to take place in 1994. I Imagine that there will be some difficulty in unscrambling one review from the other.
We talk in terms of some 30,000 people being directly employed "on site" in the nuclear industry in the north-west. That is roughly the number of miners presently in jeopardy in the coal industry. Purely by statistical chance, more than 100,000 people are engaged in the nuclear industry and its associated employment in the north-west and 100,000 people are engaged in mining and its related activities. It is not particularly helpful to such a debate to trade off one set of figures against another, because the orders of magnitude are roughly the same.
Monday seems to be the day when Members of Parliament go to Sellafield. I was there last Monday and the Minister was there today. I was greatly impressed by what I described to the local press as the paranoiac character of the preoccupation of the management of British Nuclear Fuels and the unions with safety at the plant. Perhaps because of years of misrepresentation or long periods of insecurity and uncertainty, they have been more than reasonably concerned with establishing safety and fail-safe procedures. Anyone who talks to them,

listens and watches cannot but be impressed by that. We must recognise that the programme has been developed on a cushion of financing which most industrial developments would be happy to deal with. There has been a tremendous amount of cost-plus external finance.
Serious points must be made about how best to deal with nuclear waste and about the price of uranium. As the man asking the way to Cork was told, had we had another idea, we might not have started from here. However, the plant has 10 years' employment ready to be taken advantage of and a considerable amount of work beyond that, although it is not clear whether it will be at maximum capacity. Anyone who visits Sellafield and looks at the pond where nuclear waste is lying, waiting to be treated—there is about two years' worth of work already in situ—can see the attractiveness of the proposition to BNFL management.
I welcome the caution of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It is a number of years since it carried out its lengthy and full inquiry, which need not be replicated unless there are good reasons for doing so. The Opposition will not advocate the blind replication of such an inquiry. We are happy to stand by the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the matter, as we take it to be independent, rigorous and thorough. If something else is required, we shall support that, but at present I am not certain that such an option is either necessary or desirable. I speak as a layman and await with interest the outcome of the inspectorate's deliberations.
In the short term—in the nuclear time scale that is taken to be 50 years—there are alternative options for dealing with nuclear waste. Scottish Nuclear has said that it favours the dry storage option, but that can only be for 50 years, after which time it will have to reconsider the position.
THORP at Sellafield has important employment implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is never slow to advocate the case of those employees. When considering employment, not just at Sellafield, but across the whole of the north-west, it is important to raise two issues: the tremendous number of jobs at stake and, equally important, the fact that the training programmes of so many of the companies and organisations involved in nuclear power are second to none in that region.
It is no accident that public enterprise has been the engine for training across the country. The importance of the training programmes can also be seen at Rosyth and Devonport dockyards. In both parts of the country, public money has been put behind young apprentices to create the skilled work force of today. When organisations are privatised, problems are created, as there is no will on the part of so many private companies to train people to the standard that BNFL and other firms in the north-west regard as central to their purpose.
The nuclear review could be prejudiced over the next few weeks by the handling of the so-called coal review. I say "so-called" because one cannot consider one element of the energy equation in isolation from another. It was unhelpful that the over-zealous nature of some hon. Members today when defending the nuclear industry meant that they dismissed the claim for coal. That claim is considerable because of its effect on the balance of payments and because, over the past five or six years, the coal industry—unlike any other—has not raised its prices, thus enabling the fledgling private electricity companies to


receive a bonus from one of their major energy sources which was far in excess of anything that they had anticipated.
The coal industry shows all the signs of being able to enter the next century while consistently reducing its prices. Therefore, the forecast of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that the coal industry's contribution will be 20 to 40 per cent. comes nowhere near the figure that the industry is capable of producing.

Mr. Mans: The Labour party agrees that we should stabilise CO2 emissions by the year 2000. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to do that if he is advocating that more than 40 to 45 per cent. of our electricity needs should be met by coal?

Mr. O'Neill: The Government's own guidelines anticipate that it will be possible for the generating companies to emit levels of carbon dioxide compatible with the targets to which the Government have committed themselves internationally, to apply between now and the end of the century. Over the next few months the Government must invest in clean coal technologies, which are at the prototype stage. If the Government introduce those technologies they will be in a position greatly to improve environmental conditions.
There are downsides for the environment from all forms of energy generation. Even allowing for deep storage facilities there will be problems with the disposal of waste. Part of the problem arises from the nuclear industry's accounting-by-mirrors during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. In other words, the industry is reaping the whirlwind of years of over-optimism. At the same time, a number of its plants are working efficiently. Only in the past week we learned that 22 per cent. of our electricity is now generated by nuclear means. That suggests that the industry has been able to come to terms with certain technological and environmental considerations, not to mention the vagaries of the coal regime.
The north-west makes a considerable contribution to the energy needs of this country. The industry there is a major employer and contributor to technological innovation and training. We pay tribute to the efforts of the many people engaged in it, and we hope that they will be able to continue those efforts for many years to come.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) for raising this important subject for debate. It has been a good debate, in which hon. Members have fully explored the issues.
Nuclear power is a significant component of the United Kingdom's generating mix and a major employer in the north-west. Nuclear power does not produce acid rain, and it can play a significant role in combating the greenhouse effect. I therefore suggest that, far from being part of the environmental problem, it is part of the solution to that problem.
The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who briefly attended our debate, made a sedentary reference to Chernobyl. I remember it only too well because I had to come to the House and make a statement the day the news broke. So no one is more conscious than I am of the dangers that can be associated with improperly run and inspected nuclear plants.
There is no point in supporting nuclear power regardless of the costs of the power generated by nuclear means. For that and other reasons, we have made it clear that our support of nuclear power is conditional on the industry being economic and maintaining its already high safety standards. Areas such as these will be covered by the 1994 nuclear review.
There has been much reference, implicit and explicit, to the coal review. The House will understand that it would be wrong of me even to allow myself to be accused of prejudging the results of that review, but it should be borne in mind that closing down the nuclear Magnox stations would mean not only losing the revenue from electricity sales but bringing forward the decommissioning of the stations and hence the reprocessing of spent fuel. The cost to the public purse of any early end to the Magnox station operation could be heavy, and there would inevitably be redundancies in the nuclear industry.
BNFL, which makes the fuel for Magnox stations, has estimated that nearly 3,000 jobs would be lost within two years, principally at its own Magnox stations and at the Springfield plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, where Magnox fuel is manufactured. The Government will take into account those and other factors when considering the review.
Much has been said in the debate about the relative costs of one means of generation as against another. It is generally recognised by the House that the calculations are complex and depend critically on the assumptions made and, not surprisingly, the proponents of each form of generation attempt to argue the case using statistics and assumptions that best suit their particular argument.
I make no criticism of that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for his sympathy as I seek to chart my way through the different arguments. I am not in any way seeking to be critical of other hon. Friends or of Opposition Members, but it is interesting that the only speaker to refer to the interests of the consumer was my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). At the end of the day, we must conduct our examination of energy policy in the context of consumer benefits rather than in the context of benefits to different groups of producers. I am sure that the House will bear that in mind when it considers the review.
Lest the House or those outside reach the conclusion that I have joined the feeling running through speeches, that the solution to the review is to dump gas or squeeze it out of the equation, I do not want any more than the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neil)—to anticipate any conclusion that might be reached on the role of gas. I simply note that the regulator has something to say about the economics of gas stations recently and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley remarked, there is something to be said for providing and encouraging diversity of energy supply.
Calling a halt to the use of gas in electricity generation, as is sometimes suggested, would have serious consequences for the offshore oil and gas industry. More than 20 per cent. of all industrial investment last year was North sea-related. A considerable proportion of that investment was specifically in gas.
If the hon. Member for Clackmannan thinks that not proceeding with gas stations is a cost-free option, I urge him to study the employment consequences for the North


sea oil and gas industry in north-east Scotland and north-east England, and for the many companies that supply that industry.
A number of hon. Members referred to my visit to Sellafield today. I spent a lot of time discussing and visiting that plant, and endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Clackmannan. We have heard a lot recently from environmental activists, who have been rolling out all the old arguments against the nuclear industry. In particular, they have concentrated them on their battle against the thermal oxide reprocessing plant. Their arguments carry no more weight now than they did in the original public inquiry some years ago. Many of the claims made by environmental groups have been, to put it mildly, terminologicaly inexact.
We have been told by those groups, for example, that THORP's economics have been threatened by an increase in projected decommissioning costs from £750 million to £900 million. They are wrong. The former figure was in 1989 money, the latter in today's money. The real cost, and the project's economics, are unaffected. We have been told that THORP will cost the electricity consumer a lot of money. Again, that is wrong. The nuclear price uplift is set by a fixed formula in the contracts, which last until 1998. The rest of the price is set in the competitive market. Nuclear Electric simply cannot pass on increases in the cost of reprocessing. Furthermore, Nuclear Electric made a commercial decision last year to contract for more reprocessing in THORP.
We have been told also that THORP will be uneconomic for the United Kingdom or the taxpayer. They are wrong again. According to the latest advice from BNFL, abandoning the project would cost the United Kingdom as a whole over £1 billion and 3,000 jobs, even if there were no requirement to repay overseas customers their investment.
The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are familiar, and I believe that they reflect

advice from BNFL. My officials have discussed them with BNFL; we cannot verify them in detail, but we have no reason to believe that they are inaccurate.
The outrageous allegation has been made that German customers of BNFL are ready to cancel their contracts. I understand that the two German companies specifically mentioned by Greenpeace have confirmed to BNFL that they intend to honour their contracts. The BBC has publicly withdrawn its comments about the contracts, and I find it inexplicable that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have not followed its example. If those organisations are serious environmental bodies and want to be treated as such, they must have some regard for the truth.
It has also been alleged that THORP has benefited from illegal EC state aid. There have been no secret subsidies and no cover-ups; no payments have been made or promised to BNFL under schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989. Loan guarantees for BNFL are made under the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Act 1977, which was promoted by the Labour party. The existing guaranteed loans to BNFL are from the European investment bank and Euratom. Hon. Members may find amusing, but somewhat far-fetched, the suggestion that the European Commission would itself have made illegal loans.

Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend answer my earlier question about whether the energy review will take account of the need to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000?

Mr. Eggar: I can assure my hon. Friend that environmental concerns will be taken into account. If he studies the evidence given by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, he will observe that their arguments are extremely curious: for example, they want us to reduce greenhouse emissions, but they also want us to burn more coal. Those aims, surely, are mutually contradictory.
We have had a good debate. Let me say to the hon. Member for—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. l9]—the debate was concluded.

Pornographic Telephone Services

Mr. Terry Lewis: I make no apology for returning to the subject of telephone premium-rate services. As hon. Members will recall, for seven years I have campaigned—along with others—to clean up what have now been dubbed sex lines or pornographic telephone services.
I have achieved one or two successes. The original group chat lines—which led young people to run up enormous bills for their parents to pay—have been discontinued. Following a tortuous process lasting a couple of years, the Independent Committee for the supervision of the Standards of Telephone Services—the supervisory body—came round to the view that there was something unwholesome about chat lines, and introduced a compensation scheme which had the long-term effect of pricing them out of the market. There was, however, no moral thrust in the attitude to the changes of either the committee or Ministers.
Another positive development is the availability of an opt-out, enabling subscribers to go on to digital exchanges. I believe that such exchanges now cover some 70 per cent. of the telephone network, and that by 1994 they will cover 100 per cent. That is fine, but it still does not go as far as I would wish. As I said as long ago as 1986, I think that we should move to an opt-in arrangement in respect of the services—including what I would regard as respectable, if costly, services.
The other recent positive move has been number separation, on which my view is somewhat ambivalent. I do not think that pornographic lines should exist in the first place, but if no one is moral enough to do anything about them, and if they are to remain, I accept that the separation of their numbers from those of the more respectable services to which I have referred is a positive move.
In spite of all that, these corrupting services have survived—indeed, because of the gap in the market, their number has increased in some parts of the country. I refer specifically to what are known as one-to-one services, by which young women—typically, and sadly, in our poorer areas—are engaged to do what they call "talking dirty" to a wide variety of sexual deviants and inadequate males who, phone in, all times of the night. That is one of the most corrupting aspects of the services, and I shall refer to it at greater length later in my speech.
What finally persuaded me to use my slot in the Consolidated Fund debate to raise this issue after so many years and after so many words uttered in the Chamber, were the recent events in Hillingdon, where a 17-year-old girl was raped. Those events reinforce my gut feeling about the whole business of pornographic telephone services. I hasten to add that I can produce no scientific or academic evidence to suggest a correlation between the growth in the services and the increase in crimes against women. It is a feeling that I have. If we in this place are about anything, we are about the feelings—things that we cannot touch, hold or prove, statistically or otherwise—that we get when we deal with people. I have such a feeling about these telephone services.
The lawyers among us would say, "Mr. Lewis has it wrong. Nothing was proved in the court case that followed the rape." What happened was that defence counsel—

presumably seeking in some way to mitigate the problem that his client faced—told the court that his client had spent more than four hours on a chatline before committing the crime. That seems to me to point us firmly in the direction of the conclusion for which I have argued for some considerable time.
If defence counsel was correct, the Government and their creature, ICSTIS, stand condemned, and I am fortified in my belief that there is a correlation between crime and chatlines. It is time that Ministers took that correlation on board and commissioned the study that I believe is needed. That study, perhaps under the aegis of the Home Office, not the Department of Trade and Industry, could undertake academic work into the whole business and perhaps prove or disprove any of my theories, however important they might be for Ministers.
Looking through my files over the weekend before preparing my speech, I noted that, over the time to which I have referred, I have dealt directly with 27 Ministers of the present Government. There have always been good reasons—commercial, moral and others—why nothing could be done, and nothing has been done save to rely upon the Independent Committee for the supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. The Government are in favour of self-regulation. Ministers believe in self-regulation throughout the range of our activities, but the time has come when something different has to be done. I hope that, by the time I reach the end of my speech, I will have proved that self-regulation certainly has not helped much in this case.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I have been in contact with British Telecom and ICSTIS on this issue. I was told that, in this country, although we have the technology to bar certain numbers, some people are getting around the rules by phoning the Dutch Antibes and thereby, totally out of the scope of this country, gaining access to such "services".
Does the hon. Gentleman think that action should be taken in respect of subsidiarity? We might be flouting European directives by using technology to bar those numbers. The laws of the European Community are far more liberal than in this country.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman takes me into waters that I do not necessarily want to swim in at this stage. Call barring is effective, and it can be requested if one is on a digital exchange. Before we talk about the services that one can key into on the continent, we have to put our own house in order. I do not think that our house has been in order in any moral terms in the past seven years. We must put that right. Other hon. Members might want to go further and talk about the continental television programmes that can now be tuned into. It must be said that some are dubious. Indeed, it is now easy to transmit pornography on video screens. That is a whole new ball game. I should like to persuade Ministers to reconsider the arguments that I have been putting forward for, as I have repeated once or twice, seven long years.
I do not believe that self- regulation has worked. The problems that the hon. Gentleman and others have been drawing to our attention for some time reinforce that point. Also, some people tend to be blasé about the matter. They do not consider that it is as important as the problems of whole industries. That point was highlighted


in a recent parliamentary answer to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
I asked what was happening about telephone information services, and I was told:
The independent committee for the standards of telephone information services—ICSTIS—is an effective regulator of the premium rate telephone service industry. The ICSTIS code is kept continuously under review and it was further strengthened this year. Therefore, we believe adult premium rate telephone services are strictly controlled."—[Official Report, 2 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 251.]
That stretches credulity too far.
I know that you will frown upon me, Madam Speaker, if I use props, but I seek your indulgence for 30 seconds while I hold aloft a Sunday newspaper which offers thousands of adverts, page after page after page that leave nothing to be desired. I would not read out the worst titles because of your sensibilities, Madam Speaker, but there are one or two that I may just about get away with—for instant, "Instant arousal and quick relief"; or "Quickest instant relief"; or the very naughty one, "Try my knickers on."
They are not the worst, but they appear in a national newspaper that can be bought off the shelf alongside The Independent on Sunday, the Sunday People, the Sunday Mirror or The Sunday Times. If that does not represent ineffective control by ICSTIS, I do not know what does. I certainly do not accept the answer given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Technology a few weeks ago.
I regret that ICSTIS appears, when challenged by hon. Members and by the public, to make excuses and to be an apologist for the telephone systems. It is also inadequate, physically, to do the job of monitoring when one considers the thousands of adverts that appear. It is funded to the tune of about £1·3 million a year, it has a staff of about 25, but it is supposed to deal with thousands and thousands of numbers and 350 operators. How can that organisation supervise and deal adequately with an industry that is worth £200 million?
What is ICSTIS about? Who funds it? It is funded by British Telecom, Racal-Vodac and Mercury—to Mercury's credit, it has backed out of all those pornographic services. BT tells us that it cannot, but Mercury has.
It is worth remembering what the chairman of ICSTIS said in the Mail on Sunday on 25 February 1990:
I couldn't care a hoot. Why shouldn't people engage in private conversations about pornography?
He said much the same thing last weekend on BBC Radio Leeds, when I challenged him on a down-the-line interview. The reason that there is no control, that the chairman of ICSTIS is an apologist for the services and why we need to address the problem rather than that voluntary organisation is that the systems are growing. The one-to-one services to which I have referred employ women in our poorer areas who daily verbally prostitute themselves on the altar of profit. The users, who abuse those women, are sexually inadequate men, typically, who use that service all hours of the day and night.
Another reason why the chairman of ICSTIS and his committee are wrong and should be doing something more positive is that section 43(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 specifically forbids talk that debases and demeans. That law is being broken every minute, hour and

day of the week, yet the chairman of the supervisory body says that he does not give a hoot, and that he will supervise as best he can. I do not think that is acceptable. It should not be acceptable to the House, even if it is acceptable to Ministers.
Throughout the long period during which the campaign has been running, there has been little support from the Government. I regret that, just before the election, the Competition and Services (Utilities) Bill was allowed to pass through the House without tackling the abuses that I have described. I regret that hon. Members who told me, "We support you; it is right; we should not have these services," were in the wrong Lobby when the vote took place. I moved amendments in Committee that would have rendered tonight's debate unnecessary.
I regret that Ministers have failed to respond to the many organisations that have campaigned on the issue. I shall name a few. It is a terrible pity that the Minister is preoccupied at the moment, because one or two are near to home: Care Concern, the Conservative Party Family Association, the Salvation Army, Portsmouth Family Concern and Tatton Christian Concern, which is in the Minister's own constituency.
There have been times when I have thought that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have been less than energetic in their support of the campaign, but at least our manifesto at the last election contained a commitment that we would properly tackle and control these services.
I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's speech, but he will probably repeat that Ministers have confidence in ICSTIS. Their confidence is misplaced. I have mentioned the newspaper adverts and have accurately described how the business is growing in a way that the House should be ashamed of.
Evidence has been given to ICSTIS and a previous Home Secretary by insiders—women who have worked on the one-to-ones and journalists who have taken jobs in order to gather stories. A little over 18 months ago, a journalist infiltrated a one-to-one chatline company in Manchester. His evidence was presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, ICSTIS and Oftel, but little was done to control the organisation. It was closed down for a short time, but then the principals moved somewhere else and continued to make their grubby money doing much the same thing in another part of town.
It is interesting to consider one or two extracts from the 13-page report. I shall read out four of them which I think hon. Ladies would be horrified to read, but I have cleaned up the quotations for the purposes of my speech.
The journalist said that, for the first shift, she reported to a supervisor, who handed her a notice which was given to all chatline operators. She was shown into a room of perhaps 26 young women around a wooden rail into which the telephones were plugged. She wrote:
The first impression—how grubby, how filthy—what a hell hole—phones ringing everywhere. 'Pick'em up girls' is being shouted by a lady. In a funny way, it looks like a rundown schoolroom, with a bench full of pen scribbles and graffiti going around the room—dirty cups, overflowing ashtrays, milk, tea, papers. The walls are covered with what was a light blue carpet now veneered in heavy nicotine stain. Black stone grubby floor. Very seedy and mucky.
That is the description of the place in which the women were working.
She continued:


The girl I sit next to says, 'Now we don't have any sex talk, drugs, foul language talk or anything racialist, tell them you can't put up with it.' That was the total sum of my training.
The latest code of practice to which the Minister will probably refer demands a grand total of four hours training, but that was all the training that the journalist received.
When she finally had to engage in the talk-dirty conversations, she queried with one supervisor why she had been given her previous instruction. The answer was that they had to be careful with newcomers because they might be journalists who had come to do a story.
The following extract is short. After she had taken about 30 calls in approximately six hours, she wrote:
My mouth is permanently dry and I get a terrible stomach ache. By the end of the night, I feel that all my hair is being pulled out.
She goes to the toilet but that is filthy too, with
no loo seat, cream walls splashed with brown and written on
I have scored out the dirty words. She continues:
'Today I hate phone perverts'
has been scrawled on the wall. There is
no soap or towel, paper and fag ends everywhere. A dog … howls outside. We are locked in … More explicit sex you couldn't wish to hear. I feel mentally screwed, talking dirty for men's pleasure … It can't be right.!
This is from a hard-bitten journalist who has probably seen everything.
The final extract, written after four shifts, reads:
I can't take any more … and as I leave at 9 o'clock I wonder if there is a normal world outside this seedy debauched hellhole. I thought I was fairly worldly wise, but after four nights at
the company,
I realise I know nothing about the perversions of sick men of all ages and walks of life. Will I ever be able to walk into a supermarket again, and look at those men doing their weekly shop without wondering if they were one of my callers?
That was written by a hard-bitten journalist of mature years who has seen almost everything. As the extracts prove, even she was completely shocked by what she had to endure.
Let us consider the effect if she had been a woman—as most of them are—of less mature years, in economic difficulties, probably on the dole, probably a single parent and doing the work merely for money for her family. What I have read out is typical of the experience of women who work in such services and the places from where they are delivered.
It is a sad reflection on the moral standing of the Government that the services have so prospered since privatisation. It is doubly sad that many of the 27 Ministers about whom I have already spoken have teenage daughters. The Prime Minister has a teenage daughter. The Leader of the House, whom I tackled a week or two ago on the issue, has two teenage daughters. When Ministers next see those daughters, I want them to think of those young women, and especially of the Hillingdon girl to whom I referred. I want the worthy citizens who have been appointed to ICSTIS to think about those young women. More than anything, I want the Government, starting with the Minister tonight, to shoulder their responsibilities and to do something once and for all against these services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I have listened with interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), whom I have heard speaking on this topic before. He addressed a meeting in my constituency on the same subject, with my full welcome. I understand the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members in the House and elsewhere for some time.
The Government agree that adult premium rate services need to be regulated. Despite the claims by the hon. Member for Worsley, I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the House that a system of regulation is in place which effectively controls adult premium rate services.
The issues raised by adult premium rate services come into two broad categories: first, the content of the message services; and, secondly, their accessibility. With regard to content, we have already made provision in the Telecommunications Act 1984 for dealing with the danger of obscenity over the telephone network. Section 43 states that it is a criminal offence to send by means of public telecommunications system messages that are
grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".
That law is reflected in the contracts that British Telecom has with the providers of premium rate services. These require the companies to operate within the code of practice drawn up by the Independent Committee for the supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services. Articles 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the code lay down that the services must not
involve the use of foul language or debase, degrade or demean
or
cause grave offence by reason of their sexual, sadistic, violent or repulsive content.
If service providers breach the code of practice and therefore break their contract, they can be cut off. I shall explain in detail later how the controls are implemented and the roles of Oftel and ICSTIS.
For the moment, I emphasise that, as a result of the implementation of the controls, the content of adult premium rate services is, by generally accepted standards, fairly mild. It is certainly milder than that accepted in other media. The messages may be distasteful or banal, or in some instances laughable. We may be amazed that people are willing to spend so much money on them, but where no laws are being broken, it is not the inclination of the Government to tell people what they can or cannot spend their money on.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister spoke about people spending their money on these services. I think that he will agree that the bulk of the money is spent by people who use somebody else's telephone. If he were to listen to some of the wider range of services over a weekend, he would find that the callers are mostly security men working in other people's factories.

Mr. Hamilton: I know that the House authorities have already made it impossible for hon. Members to make use of the services from their telephones. I do not know what proportion was accounted for by telephone calls at the taxpayer's expense from here, but we have at least plugged that loophole.
The hon. Member for Worsley referred to a link between sexual crimes and pornography, and to a recent case in which a rapist was discovered to have made much use of adult telephone services. When we hear of sexual crime in which the perpetrator has been a user of pornographic materials, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the materials in some way contributed to the crime.
The question of a link between pornography and sexual crime has been extensively researched. Certainly, in the case of soft pornography, no evidence has been found that there is a causative link. A more plausible explanation is that those likely to commit sexual crimes will find their excitement in one way or another and banning any particular form of pornography, or even all pornography, will make no difference. Clearly, the issue extends far beyond the availability of premium rate services to the general question of the balance between the freedom of expression and the avoidance of obscenity.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is it not a fact that, although research in this country showed no direct link, a great volume of research elsewhere does show a direct link? Is it not also a fact that, whenever the police visit the homes of those suspected of or caught molesting children or raping women, they almost invariably find a collection of pornographic material? The great majority of people believe that pornographic material feeds perverts. The Government should tighten the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to remove some of the more obscene examples of pornographic material.

Mr. Hamilton: I fully accept that the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend is widely shared. In these chicken and egg cases, it is always difficult to know where the causative link lies or the direction in which it flows—if a causative link can flow.
I fully admit that there is room for argument. However, questions about obscene publications have traditionally been matters that the House has considered as conscience issues and the Government have not sought to impose their will on the House more generally. However, I fully accept that there is great concern about the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) said, and there is certainly more than a small amount of room for arguing that a causative link can be found.
On behalf of the Government, all I can say is that, as it cannot be proved with the certainty that we think appropriate for legislation to be further tightened, more research needs to be carried out, especially as we will be legislating for this country and not for other countries.
The other broad area of concern with adult premium rate services is their accessibility, a point made by the hon. Member for Worsley in his intervention a moment ago. Perhaps the most worrying aspect is not their content per se, but the ease of access to the services for non-adults.
The vast majority of households have telephones. While parents can usually exercise control over their children's television watching beyond the 9 pm watershed, and there are point-of-sale controls over the purchase of published material by minors, it is more difficult to control access to the telephone.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Given the difficulties with such controls, why has the Minister not

listened to the submission made by the Director General of Telecommunications in 1989 suggesting that premium rate telephone calls and phone lines should be subject to an opt-in principle? That would make control easy and would overcome the Minister's difficulties.

Mr. Hamilton: Every effort is made to advise customers of opting-out facilities, and BT sends out leaflets with its bills. The opting-out facility is provided free. It could hardly be easier to arrange opting out. In the circumstances, we believe that the law as it stands and the code of practice under it are sufficient for the time being.

Mr. William Ross: If I recall correctly, have not the Government proposed certain changed in legislation governing trade union contributions to the Labour party, stating that there should be an opt-in? Why should there not be a similar opting in for telephone customers? The trade is disgusting and nothing that the Minister says will convince me otherwise.

Mr. Hamilton: I do not seek to equate the two activities in relation to the degree of public esteem or probity and I accept the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Are the Government concerned about the number of crimes committed against women and children? Are they concerned that pornography in all its forms is much more accessible today? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a responsibility to protect women and children and do something about the filthy material which is so readily available and on which a great and expensive industry is based? Will he join me in deploring newspapers that print advertisements of the sort to which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) referred?

Mr. Hamilton: I know what a doughty fighter my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, a neighbour of mine, has been for decency during the years that she has been a Member. I applaud her fight. I have much in common with what my hon. Friend has advocated for many years.
It is true that society has changed—in many respects, for the worse—and that includes its social morality. We must accept that not everyone agrees with our view of the world. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that soft pornography is much more freely available today than it was, certainly when I was at school in the 1960s. No one could view with equanimity the decline in standards which has taken place in society generally since that time and, indeed, since much earlier.
That brings me back to the question of the causative link between such publications and sexual crime. I deplore, as do the Government, offences against women and children which are especially revolting and which all sane and decent-thinking people will deplore as strongly as they possibly can. However, we must accept that times change, and society looks at publications today in a somewhat different way from the way in which it did 20 or 30 years ago. That is not to say that I condone or agree with that approach, but the Government are limited by what is generally acceptable in society. We have strongly taken the view that hard pornography and other forms of pornography should not be freely or legally imported into this country, even after the single market comes into effect on 1 January.
We take seriously the enforcement of the law tht exists at present. The question whether we should toughen the law in terms of the definition of obscenity or other matters arising out of the Obscene Publications Act takes us beyond the scope of this debate, which is about one particular form of activity that my hon. Friend and others find distasteful.

Mrs. Winterton: I should like briefly to correct my hon. Friend on one point, although it is outside the brief of this debate. It is legal to import into the United Kingdom hard pornography via satellite television. It is illegal for people in their own homes, who receive such pornography, to record it and use it again, but it is legal to import it. That is due to an agreement which was made within the European Community when one of our Ministers at some stage signed something, not understanding precisely the impact that it would have.

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot accept that one of my colleagues failed to understand what he was doing when negotiating in the European Community. I always avoid the difficulty by saying no whenever I go to the Council of Ministers, so I never get into such scrapes.
I assumed that my hon. Friend was talking about publications, magazines, videos and so on. I stand corrected if my hon. Friend is right about satellite broadcasts. Undoubtedly, we will return to that matter on another occasion.
I revert to my speech. The other broad cause of anxiety, to which I referred earlier, is the accessibility of adult premium rate services, which the hon. Member for Worsley mentioned. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of such services is the ease with which non-adults can acquire access to the service. I agree that it is more difficult to control access to the telephone than to other services. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have made some significant advances in recent months and years in controlling access.
Another problem of access applies not only to adult services but to all premium rate services. Someone other than the telephone account holder may run up large bills using the services without the knowledge of the account holder. However, technology is bringing the means to solve the problems. Call barring is now available to some 60 per cent. of BT customers. That makes it possible to bar calls from a line to particular numbers or classes of numbers. That simply means that if those numbers are called from the line, no connection is made.
As the modernisation of the BT network continues, the availability of call barring will increase. It should be available to virtually all BT customers by the end of 1996. BT recently mounted a campaign to bring the facility to the attention of its customers by enclosing a leaflet with all its quarterly bills. As the hon. Member for Worsley brought a crop of leaflets, I have also brought the one that BT issued. It contains important information about the call barring service and how people can avail themselves of it. It is too early to say what impact call barring will have and how many customers will take up the offer, but I am sure that the facility will ease the fears of many worried parents who have written to Oftel or my Department.
The precision of call barring has been improved by the decision to confine adult premium rate services to one prefix—0898 on the BT network. Other premium rate services such as information services can still be accessed

via BT on 0891 if the account holder so wishes, so access to those services, which are a beneficial and innovative use of the telephone network, need not be lost.
Another facility which is of value in controlling access is itemised billing. By specifying the number called, the duration of the call and its cost, itemised billing gives account holders knowledge of any misuse of their lines. That facility is available to 85 per cent. of BT's customers and should be almost universally available by the end of 1995.
Let me now give some detail about how the controls on adult services are implemented. A key role is played by ICSTIS in this. That independent body was set up in 1986 by BT and a trade association of the service providers. It is funded by the network operators. ICSTIS drew up a code of practice for premium rate services. That code has been under continual review and has been amended several times. The current edition published in October 1992 is the fifth.
ICSTIS administers the code and adjudicates on breaches. As I explained earlier, these are in effect breaches of the contract that the service provider has with the network operator. If ICSTIS decides that there has been a breach, two possible actions follow. If the breach involves a recorded message service, ICSTIS recommends to the network operator what the sanction should be. The network operators have agreed to carry out ICSTIS recommendations. These can mean the disconnection of the service or, in more serious cases, banning the service provider from operating any premium rate services.
In cases involving line services, where the caller speaks to someone over the telephone, ICSTIS makes its recommendation to Oftel.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend spoke about the code of conduct that providers of services ought to observe. I am worried about several points. One is the list of advertisements which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) read out. Either the people are not getting what they think that they are paying for, and therefore are being conned, or they are getting what they are paying for, so the services ought to be banned. There is an inconsistency there.

Mr. Hamilton: As I have never availed myself of any of these telephone services, I cannot speak from personal experience about whether one is more likely to be conned or to be gratified. The intervention by my hon. Friend is fair. My guess is that people are more likely to be conned—if the code is being observed, the caller will not get what he expects.

Mr. William Ross: Some months ago, I received through the post a formidable array of material complaining about such phone calls, so I took the precaution of ringing up some services. The first service that I rang sounded rather like a cow calving, with moaning and groaning, and I have had a fair experience of that in my life. Some of the others were more explicit and, as the father of teenage children, I was quite disgusted by them. If the Minister has not availed himself of such services, will he go home and ring one—he cannot do it from his office, because he cannot dial out of this place, even for a useful service and see what he thinks? Then he can speak from experience, and there is nothing better than that.

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the subject is not my responsibility within the Department, and I am filling in for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who is attending the Telecommunications Council in Brussels. I shall not take up the hon. Gentleman's kind offer, but will leave it to my hon. Friend—who shares my views on many things—to give me a second-hand report.
The Director General of Telecommunications has a statutory duty to consider representations about telecommunications services. In 1988, the director general's concern about some aspects of premium rate services led him to refer them for investigation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC's report in 1989 led to certain premium rate services—including one-to-one adult services and chatlines—being made the subject of new conditions in BT's licence.
Conditions 33a and 33b state that BT may not allow service providers to provide any of those so-called "controlled services", unless the director general has recognised a code of practice regulating the provision of such services. The director general recognised the ICSTIS code for that purpose.
One of the conditions of the code is that all providers of controlled services should maintain an adequate compensation fund. The purpose is to compensate account holders whose lines are used without their permission by others to access the premium rate services and who find themselves liable for large bills. The failure to comply with that condition on the compensation fund led the director general to close down chatline services.
The fund for one-to-one services is administered by an independent adjudicator within ICSTIS. In 1991, it made 234 compensation awards to customers with a value of just under £135,000. The current system of regulation includes a code of practice administered by an independent self-regulatory body, with the Office of Telecommunications involved for one-to-one services.
The same sanctions apply in both cases. In the case of recorded messages, the operator acts on the recommended action of ICSTIS, while for one-to-one services, Oftel requires the operator to take action against the service provider, on the recommendation of ICSTIS. ICSTIS comprises 12 people, including lawyers, a doctor, a justice of the peace, a trade union leader and members with experience in consumer affairs, social work and telecommunications. The committee employs a full-time staff of about 40 to carry out monitoring and to take action on breaches of the code.
ICSTIS deals with all premium rate services, not merely adult services, which make up only 18 per cent. of the sector and generated revenue of about £36 million in 1991, out of a total of £200 million for all premium rate services. In 1991, of 6,753 complaints received by ICSTIS, 845 only—about 13 per cent.—related to adult services. ICSTIS made adjudications in that year which led to 689 services being removed from the public network and an additional 373 being amended. Those figures include other services as well as the adult services under consideration in this debate.
I am informed by ICSTIS that about one third of the disconnected services were adult message services. ICSTIS's code covers the content of the messages and that of advertisements for them. Article 5.6.4 of the code lays down that such services cannot be advertised in free

publications and that in those that are generally available —other than so-called "top-shelf" publications—advertisements must not contain
pictures or words of a sexually suggestive nature which are unacceptably offensive.
Since that article was introduced in the code in May 1991, ICSTIS has conducted four major surveys of all publications in the "generally available" category. Those surveys took place in May and October 1991 and February and July 1992. In total, 400 advertisements were considered, resulting in 178 adjudications, of which 80 per cent. were adverse. Those resulted in access being barred to nearly 500 services. Since then, there has been a distinct improvement in the content of advertisements.
It is due to ICSTIS's activities as well as pressure from readers that a number of tabloid newspapers that once carried advertisements for the services no longer do so.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I declare that I have not used those services either, but I have spoken to people who have. Is my hon. Friend aware that the first minute or so of some calls is used to provide the caller with other numbers, whereby the service provider may be able to get out of those rules and regulations? The caller can simply ring those numbers and reach other services which the provider would not dare advertise in the normal way.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall take my hon. Friend's word for it.
A criticism that has been made of ICSTIS in the past is that service providers who are disconnected can simply set up again with new services. ICSTIS has always had the power to seek an assurance from service providers that their services would adhere to the code in the future. It now also has the power to recommend that the network operators ban service providers from operating a specific type of service or any premium rate service.
ICSTIS does not just react to complaints but undertakes its own monitoring of the adult services. In the case of live one-to-one adult services where the code's provisions are generally tougher than for recorded message services, there is a requirement on the service providers to tape record all conversations and deliver the tapes on request to ICSTIS.

Mr. Lewis: On the advertisements and the trawl that ICSTIS carries out from time to time, I should be glad to give the Minister the newspaper that I brandished earlier if he will confirm that 90 per cent. of the advertisements in it fall foul of ICSTIS's code of practice and that he will wipe them out overnight.
Many of those involved in this long and arduous argument believe that ICSTIS, as constituted, is not adequate to the task. The Minister talks about tapes being delivered, but the people who operate many of the one-to-one services either border on or are very much part of the criminal fraternity. They boast that they can get around any of the strictures that ICSTIS places on them.
In the next few weeks, journalists on a number of newspapers will come together with some powerful evidence to prove my point. Their evidence will hit the news-stands in short order once the work is completed. The Minister must be extremely careful not to be cajoled and coerced by the fluid conversation of the chairman of ICSTIS or those who advise him about ICSTIS's efficacy.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology, who will be interested in pursuing the matter with him.
ICSTIS also has the right to visit the premises of one-to-one service providers at any time to ensure that the code is complied with.
The Government are alive to the dangers posed by adult services. We are satisfied that there is a system that monitors and controls those services. The system sets standards for the content of the services, which are stricter than for other media. The monitoring mechanism enables breaches of the guidelines to be picked up. There is a series of sanctions including, for persistent offenders, the possibility of being banned completely from operating the services. Access is dealt with through the widening availability of call barring, itemised billing and controls on where the services can be advertised. The system of control is effective and not static. As I have demonstrated, it has changed to counter new threats in the area of adult services. Both the Director General of Telecommunications and my Department keep the matter under constant review.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who has assiduously pursued the porn lines and raised, both in the House and the country, people's concern about the nature of those lines. The Government seem incapable of providing any regulation in line with what my hon. Friend rightly calls for and the country demands.
We know the Government's philosophy on all services provided by the private sector—that the free market can do no wrong. That philosophy is no better exemplified than by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and the absent Minister to whom he frequently referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Technology. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs finds himself isolated in the House tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley rightly asked him questions, as he has done in previous debates over the years, about whether people should opt in and about the nature of the regulation. Sadly, those questions remain unanswered.
The Minister made a telling contribution on the nature of the Government's policy of opting in or opting out. It appears that it is in order for the Government to make trade union members opt in to ballots for trade unions and membership of trade unions, but it is wrong for the Government to force householders, home owners and others with telephones to opt in to services—obviously not porn services—but others that cost them much money. The line is drawn between what the Government want to force trade unions to do and what it wants to force on the free market, no matter how dubious the activities.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Member must accept that there is a distinct difference between having the choice of telephoning the numbers—which subscribers can do through their current lines—and forcing somebody to become a trade union member so that he has to opt out of that service.

Mr. Griffiths: We are talking about choice in both cases: the choice of people to opt in to trade unions and the choice of people to opt in to the sex, porn lines or other

services. We want to stop such services, but we see no reason why people should not have the choice of opting in to any of the legitimate services—other than the porn lines—that are provided. That view was explicitly spelt out on page 37 of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on chatline and message services that was presented in January 1989.
It was, of course, the service providers in the free market that told the commission that the proposals of the Director General of Telecommunications for making service providers
responsible for contracting-in … in respect of chatlines were unacceptable.
Sadly, the Government listened to only one side of the argument. Typically, they listened only to that side of the argument that had the capital to back up its argument, rather than to ordinary people with fewer resources with legitimate concerns.
Let us consider the Government's action on porn lines and services. The Minister could hardly come to the House tonight and claim that the Government have taken tough action. I am glad that he did not try to do so, as the Government have taken no such action. The maximum fine for the porn services is a laughable £1,000—the figure to which the Government raised the fine in October 1992.
Sex line bosses openly boast about the Government's tolerance of their activities. One sex line boss told The Mail on Sunday on 29 November, barely a fortnight ago:
frankly, I know what the law says, but we easily get around it. My girls can really say what they like on the phones.
We know that section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 makes it a clear offence to send grossly offensive, obscene or menacing messages over the phone, but with a fine of a paltry £1,000 it is hardly surprising that sex line bosses are laughing at the Minister, because they know that in his heart he does not intend to regulate a market that generates £200 million, much of it profits made at the expense of the misery of others.

Mr. Lewis: It is instructive to note that ICSTIS, Oftel and the Government between them have not brought one prosecution under section 43(1) of the Telecommunications Act. Operators are merely told to change their format or to take off the lines, and Ministers accept that sanction.

Mr. Griffiths: I see the heads in the Chamber nodding with shock at that information. The Mail on Sunday and journalists Denya Allen and Tanya Reed have carried out excellent studies of the sort that my hon. Friend has asked the Home Office to carry out. They have discovered a catalogue of feeble policing. One sex line firm, Bluebase Ltd., is cited in the August ICSTIS report for
describing sexual acts in an offensive way".
I am pleased to say that it was barred—but only for 14 days. In the next month, the same company, under this Government's telecommunications regime, was found guilty of offering two services that breached the "debase, degrade and demean" criteria, in addition to the "grave offence" criterion clearly set out in the code. The company claimed that it had withdrawn both services, yet one of those services still operates under the very nose of the Minister and his officers in the DTI.
In another case, Telecommunications Ltd. was barred from access to the numbers—again for two weeks—after two offences of advertising in a free newspaper—clearly against the ICSTIS code of conduct. The company was let


off the offence in September, after claiming that it was merely the fault of the booking agent. A month later, in October, it tried to blame another free sheet when it was caught committing the same offence again. Again, the punishment was simply to be barred from access to the number for two weeks. Why does not the Minister tackle companies like Bluebase Ltd. and Telecommunications Ltd., given that they are openly ignoring the code—only to have pitifully weak penalties imposed on them for doing so? Why do not the Government bring in far tougher measures?

Dr. Spink: The Telecommunications Act 1984 comes under the umbrella of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. If the Government introduced legislation to strengthen the latter Act, to achieve some of what the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) wants, could we expect Labour support for the Government's action?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman asks an excellent question, and I give him this assurance on behalf of Labour Front Benchers. Anything that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley propose to stamp out such phone lines that commands all-party support will be firmly endorsed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sorry that the same cannot be said by members of the Government Front Bench. However, I know that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) will bring his redoubtable persuasive pressures to bear on his colleagues over their lack of action.
The Independent Committee for the supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services had a number of opportunities to condemn such practices outright, and I took a close look at its recent press releases. I draw the attention of the House to a ICSTIS press release dated Monday 22 June, which announced a record number of services closed. I am sure that the House welcomes that, especially in the light of tonight's debate. I hope that development will have all-party support—barring members of the Government Front Bench.
The press release runs to three pages and goes into detail about the record number of closed services, but does not make a single mention of porn lines. A key example of the lines that ICSTIS trumpets about removing is this;
Callers had in reality had to listen to a lengthy promotion for a water purifying system".
That is the sole example that ICSTIS cites of the 689 services that were removed during the year. Not one word of concern about the porn lines that have so troubled the House and the country. No mention of the problems that my hon. Friend rightly raised, and of the fear that sex lines generate among the public. No mention of the fact—and I am grateful to the Minister for giving us one useful fact tonight—that only one third of the lines removed were porn services.
I lay down this challenge to ICSTIS. It should stop focusing exclusively on the promotion of water purifying systems and concentrate on publicising the 230 porn lines that ICSTIS was forced to remove. Why was so little publicity given to them?
My hon. Friend makes a modest request. He asks for an independent Home Office study of the impact of sex lines. Right hon. and hon. Members know of the allegations made by constituents of the malevolent influence of sex lines in sex cases in our constituencies. I have received many such letters, as have other right hon. and hon. Members—including one last weekend, which related to a sex case too horrible to mention. However, it has been given a great deal of publicity in Edinburgh and in the rest of Scotland because of the leniency of the sentence passed on the offender—something which I and others are taking up.
My hon. Friend is asking only for an independent study of the impact of sex lines, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to that invitation to the Home Office to undertake such a study. I know that the public harbour deep suspicions that some assaults, rapes and other horrendous sexual crimes are directly connected with the existence of porn lines.
The flaws in self-regulation are clear. It is shocking that the organisation responsible for monitoring sex lines should employ a staff of only 25 to listen to the millions of telephone calls that are made every year. How can they be expected to act as guardians of public values, and to provide the necessary safeguards? The reason why there are only 25 staff is, of course, the business's unwillingness to fund a proper investigation and proper vetting of telephone lines.
The same people who are laughing at the Minister for failing to introduce proper penalties—for failing to bar those who operate sex lines not just for 14 days, but once and for all—are laughing at ICSTIS; and I must say, with some sadness, that they are right to do so, as ICSTIS is clearly not doing its job properly. ICSTIS boasts that, in the past year, telephone users have been paid £475,000 in compensation as a result of misuse of chat line services. That however, should be set against the £200 million business generated by the sales.
Labour's message is clear. These porn lines are operating with the clear sanction of the Government—or, at least, because of Government inaction—and they must be stopped. Labour wholly supports my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley in that regard; indeed, I believe that much of the House supports him. We are very disappointed that the Minister has failed to tackle the problem—preferring to blame his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology—and has given us no reassurance. He may think that he can brush the matter under the carpet, but Labour will continue to pursue it until the law is changed and there is adequate regulation of this disgraceful business.

Engineering

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The successful conclusion of the Edinburgh summit over the weekend provides the right background to the debate. After all, the completion of the Single European Act at the end of the British presidency of the European Council on 31 December will confirm Europe as the world's largest trading bloc—almost as large as the United States and Japan combined. I believe that progress with the Maastricht treaty is vital to future opportunities in trade and manufacturing, and I hope that the House will proceed with the Bill in the coming weeks and months.
To succeed in world markets, the country must perform well in engineering and manufacturing. I shall be able to refer only briefly to issues which have a bearing on that fundamental truth and will leave it to others to fill in the details.
Given the exchanges in the House over recent weeks and months, I think it right to strike a positive note and provide some good news. That is one of the reasons why I have chosen this subject for debate tonight.
I am grateful to those hon. Members who have seen fit to attend the debate. I welcome, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), whose speeches I look forward to hearing. I welcome, too, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who is to reply to the debate in due course, and my hon. Friend the Whip, who I know is listening carefully—

The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Sydney Chapman): The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.

Mr. Thompson: I refer to my hon. Friend as the Whip because I regard that as his true role in the debate. I know that he will listen carefully to everything that is said during the next hour.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may already be aware that at least six Departments of State are covered by the subject of the debate—the Department of Education, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Public Service and Science, the Department of Transport and the Department of Employment. There may even be others. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in ranging outside his brief in his reply.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows, his colleague the Minister for Trade made a significant but not widely reported speech on 25 November, speaking to the Institute of Export. In that speech, which I regard as a milestone in the Department's thinking, my hon. Friend referred to the economic challenge facing Britain and to our export performance which, thanks to the Government's policy and energy, is good in many respects. He also referred to the urgent need to increase our share of trade, not only with North America and Europe but against the competition of "the tigers", to use my hon. Friend's words—the economies of the southern and eastern Pacific. My hon. Friend spoke also of the need for a partnership between business and the Government.
I welcome such remarks because, in discussing the role of engineering in manufacturing industry, we must remember that there is a need for the Government to work

closely with industry and business. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to confirm in his reply that that is the thinking of his Department.
In the speech to which I referred a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade spoke about the balance of payments deficit which has been caused by the narrowing of the manufacturing base and increasingly sharp competition from outside. He spoke in particular of the fact that our share of exports of capital goods to non-OECD countries had declined from 7 per cent. to 5 per cent. since 1985. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State shares the concern of the Minister for Trade about that decline, which represents a challenge both to the Government and to business and industry. After all, capital goods are the products that our engineers and industrialists are engaged in producing. We should be increasing our exports of such goods not only within the Community but to countries outside it. The figures that I have quoted are disturbing, and form part of a trend which should be reversed. To be blunt, we are not doing well enough in this area.
Britain has an excellent tradition, going back over many years, of education in science and engineering. I do not have time to refer to the great scientists and engineers of the industrial revolution and since. We also have great engineering achievements to our name. It follows, therefore, that we should be world leaders in the production and export of capital goods. Yet our share of such exports is declining.
I wish to refer to the early-day motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) who, as my hon. Friends know, is chairman of the parliamentary group for engineering development. My hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point, for Hertfordshire, South-West and for Bolton, North-East are also members of that excellent all-party group, and I am sure that they will join me in paying tribute to its excellent work in raising the profile of engineering both in the outside world and here in Parliament. That early-day motion declares:
That this House, recognising the need to regenerate the United Kingdom manufacturing base and the importance of engineering to that process, notes the Engineering Employers' Federation proposals for a national industrial strategy; and calls for an early debate.
Of course, this short debate very late at night might not answer that point totally, but at least we are having a debate on engineering and on manufacture.
The Engineering Employers Federation, which is referred to in the early-day motion, has supplied me with details of the strategy that it recommends. Time does not permit me to describe it, but there are many excellent points and I recommend that hon. Members study that industrial strategy and take note and learn lessons where they apply. In particular, the federation is concerned that we should tackle the cultural bias against vocational education and industrial training.
In Norwich at the weekend I heard an address by Professor Paul Ormerod of the Henley centre for forecasting. He spoke about the prospects for growth in the 1990s. In fact, he was bullish—optimistic about the future, and rightly so. My hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will agree that prospects for 1993 are certainly encouraging. He said that high-tech companies will lead us out of the present recession. Of course, the good news for hon. Members who represent


constituencies in East Anglia is the fact that that part of the country contains a high proportion of high-tech firms. That is good news for East Anglia, it is good news for the country, and it is good that high-tech firms will lead the way in a recovery.
Perhaps in my constituency of Norwich, North the news is not quite so good, because the proportion of high-tech firms in Norwich is not so high as I should like it to be. The chamber of commerce and other local organisations are aware of that and are doing all that they can to improve the situation. They are also rightly putting pressure on local Members of Parliament and on Ministers for improvements in the infrastructure in the Norwich and Norfolk area. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), the Secretary of State for Transport, for the recent improvement in road construction in the Norfolk and Norwich area, but there is a long way to go. Infrastructure is important to the setting up of new industries, particularly high-tech industries in any area, and that is certainly true in Norwich. I should like there eventually to be a science park, perhaps creating a centre for high-tech industries in the Norwich area.
Success in high technology comes from the correct use of engineering and manufacturing skills. In May this year, the Institution of Electrical Engineers published a survey of surveys concerned with United Kingdom manufacturing. Its conclusions were important and interesting. First, it found that there have been improvements in management and that further gains are necessary. Secondly, it found that there is a need to reassess the balance between shareholders, managers and the work force. Thirdly, it found that the United Kingdom has a creditably large number of internationally competitive companies and that 12 of them account for the majority of our national spend on research and development. It follows from that—the institution certainly came to this conclusion—that research and development needs to penetrate a wider spread of companies in this country.
Fourthly, the institution found that the United Kingdom is losing ground in patent applications. That is a worrying point for those of us who are worried about future innovation in industry. Fifthly, it found that the United Kingdom work force, except at the top, is still seriously under-qualified. Not surprisingly, of course, the same survey called for a change in national attitudes.
Therefore, I support calls from all quarters for the engineering profession to trumpet its successes and to capture the attention of the media. There is a need for new and positive themes after the doom and gloom that we have heard during 1992. There is good news on the engineering front. Ron Kirby, director of public affairs at the Engineering Council, spoke recently about surveys which had been conducted. In the past three years, pay and job satisfaction have increased in the engineering profession. Now young people are more likely to be recommended to go into engineering; apparently, young people's perception of the engineer has improved. Applications for university engineering courses have risen by 12 per cent. compared with two years ago. That is all good news on which it is worth focusing.
Similar trends were uncovered in recent answers on the subject from education Ministers to my hon. Friend the

Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). The initiative to encourage women into science and engineering has also succeeded and the number of women studying engineering has doubled since that campaign started in 1984. There is a lot of good news to relate at this time of night as we look forward to 1993 and the growth in engineering and manufacturing.
I hope that Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry are forging closer links with those at the Department of Education and the Department of Employment to consider vocational and technical training. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Employment have widened access to further and higher education. They have reformed fundamentally vocational qualifications and removed the distinction between universities and polytechnics. They have also freed further education colleges from local education authorities. Those changes are all part of the revolution in further education, which I welcome. They represent a good start, but there is a long way to go.
Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Norwich ITEC—the information technology centre—which is funded by its own commercial efforts and the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council. I saw excellent examples of training for young people leading to national vocational qualifications. In 1991–92, some 93 per cent. of those young trainees found jobs, despite the recession.
Even now, however, concern is being expressed in Norwich—and, I suspect, nationally—about a future skills shortage. Concern has also been expressed about future funding through the training and enterprise councils, but I do not have time to debate that in detail. Concern about skill shortages is important because if such concern is being expressed now, it will deepen as the economic recovery gathers pace in 1993 and beyond. We should address that concern now, press on with training and provide the resources to encourage that.
It is interesting to note that the Engineering Council, in its response to the consultation exercise launched in August by the Office of Science and Technology, called for
a larger number of sub-degree support personnel trained in NVQs levels 3 and 4.
The need for a better supply of skilled people of that level cannot be overstated. My experience of industry dates back to the 1950s. Even then, people were drawing attention to the inadequate supply of technicians to provide back-up, compared with the adequate supply of graduate engineers. It is amazing that that is still true today. Our future competitiveness in world markets will depend as much on that supply of trained personnel as on anything else.
We have a reputation for short-termism. As we emerge from the recession, it is vital that we plan ahead. We must have a partnership between business and Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that there should be such a partnership before breakfast, lunch and dinner, and later if necessary. After all, if we are able to debate this issue at 11.30 pm, I see no reason why such co-operation should not continue through the night as well as before such meals.
Not everyone realises that 9,500 qualified engineers are chief executives, children or managing directors of firms. I do not believe that everyone realises that there are 200,000 chartered engineers—one must add to that all the other categories of engineers.
That figure compares with 134,000 chartered accountants and 55,000 solicitors. The number of engineers is significant. Engineers are important and there are a lot of them, so it is vital that we convey the message to them that there must be no more self-indulgent talk about the low status of engineers. Those days are gone.
I hope that the profession will discuss in public the challenges that we face not only in this country but in the world at large. I refer to the challenges of the environment: for example, in this time of famine in Somalia and elsewhere, the challenge of how we produce and transport food from one part of the world to another; the challenges of energy production and conservation; and, of course, the challenges of improving the infrastructure not only of this country but of the world.
I am sure that those following the debate will agree that engineering must be highly regarded in its own right. Engineering courses must not be subservient to the immediate needs of industry. There must be attractive and intellectually stimulating courses for our young people and they must attract a broader range of the population than just the future chartered engineer. Our future prosperity and self-respect as a nation depend on our attitude to creative and innovative work in industry.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond in that spirit. I hope that he will confirm the pro-active role of Government, as described by the Minister for Trade in his speech last month, to which I referred earlier, so that Britain can again be the envy of the world in the quality and quantity of its trade in manufactured goods and in the number of well qualified and enthusiastic young engineers and technicians we have ready to solve the problems of the future.

Dr. Robert Spink: It is a difficult job for a new and innocent Member such as myself to follow my experienced and knowledgeable hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who eloquently and forcefully presented the debate and set out the terms for the next hour. I welcome his initiative in promoting the debate.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to address the key issue of the research that is undertaken in educational establishments, and to focus in particular on engineering and technological research. I hope that in doing so I shall be able to signpost one simple way for the Government to intervene sensibly, and—if I may borrow a phrase from my hon. Friend—before breakfast, lunch and dinner, to help the manufacturing sector to help this nation back into growth.
Hon. Members will be aware that the manufacturing base of our economy relies for its innovation and competitiveness on technological research. They will also be aware that 63 per cent. of British exports—the figure is rising—derive from the manufacturing sector of our economy. I doubt that any hon. Member would seek to deny the strategic importance of the manufacturing sector to the British economy.
The position of industrial research and development in the United Kingdom is not as gloomy as one might think. Expenditure has shown a strong upward trend in recent years. That is not altogether unconnected with the

recognition and support of the Conservative Government in the past decade for research in this sector of the economy.
One of the questions that I shall pose tonight is whether we as a nation derive the maximum benefit from that research. Is that research truly helpful in the long term to our economy, or is it more helpful to economies of other nations that are somewhat quicker off the mark than we seem to be in Britain? I shall suggest that the Government could do certain things to redress that situation.
For example, clearly the Japanese have been successful in bringing products rapidly to the marketplace. They exploit technological innovation in a way that assists their economy positively, which we would do well to emulate. Japan and other industrial nations take technological developments rapidly through to products in the marketplace.
In this country we often have the feeling that other nations watch British universities carefully and painstakingly clearing a path through the jungle of fundamental research and then through the technological development, and that those other nations then seem somehow to time their product development runs cunningly down the research path that we British have so carefully cleared for them. They seem to start after us but to pass us just before we reach the warm sunlit clearing and the comfort of the marketplace. We do the basic research, but foreign economies too often benefit from it in the competitive marketplace.
Hon. Members will be aware that there are three generic phases of research—strategic, applied and near-market research. Strategic research is concerned with the longer term; applied research takes a medium-term view; near-market research is just what the name implies—it focuses on a one-year or two-year time scale. It is that near-market research which we neglect at our peril, and I wish to promote it tonight.
In recent years, industry has recognised and begun to apply compressed time concepts and philosophies in order to bring products more rapidly to the marketplace and secure a competitive advantage. It is time that the Government gave more recognition to the enormous value of near-market research, and they could do so by switching research funding away from the more fundamental PhD type of research towards more practical near-market research. Provided that that took place within a balanced strategy, it would be more immediately valuable to our economy.
I welcome the White Paper on the subject, and the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science to my question on the issue earlier today. But the Government can play a yet greater part in the shift of emphasis towards applied research. To do so, the Office of Science and Technology and the separate Department of Trade and Industry must create better bridges, so that the flow of research enterprise, from basic research through strategic and applied research to near-market research will bring competitive and innovative products to the marketplace for the benefit of our economy rather than of someone else's.
If the price that we had to pay for that was that we had fewer Nobel prize winners, but we had a more enterprising, successful and vibrant economy, with more jobs, that would be a price well worth paying. That is not to say that all big science projects should be disbanded in favour of


short-term projects. For instance, I believe passionately that the joint European torus project should continue to receive our full support.
The public are now a little confused about where the responsibility for research and research funding lies. My constituents are not certain how the Government provide funds to promote the development of marketable products—but they are under no illusions about the fact that we must bring such products to the marketplace if we as a nation are not to fall behind in the competitive race from which there is no opt-out for Great Britain.
Of course, I accept the prime need to ensure that public funds directed to all research, and especially to near-market research, go to the right potential product areas, and therefore to the correct educational and other institutions that can most effectively deliver products and technologies to the marketplace. That will require that the marketplace is properly researched—but that is another question.
The whole concept raises the issue of what are the right institutions to conduct near-market research. The links between industry and academia need to be encouraged and improved to maximise the development of new products and technologies. There are good examples of successful interaction between industry and academia enabling us to exploit the science and technological base of our universities. They include the teaching company scheme, the support by ACME of near-market research and the willingness of the Department of Trade and Industry and some of the funding councils to support centres of excellence in near-market research in our universities. The Cimtex centre at De Montfort university is an excellent example of such support and of such a centre of excellence.
Such examples are still too few. There is a strong resistance to near-market research and a presumption in favour of the PhD-based, more traditional research in our educational establishments. That is entirely understandable given the traditional basis of many of our academic institutions compared with the more pragmatic educational and research establishments that have grown up in modern, less traditionally based economies.
I urge the Government to look for ways in which to redress the unhelpful bias against applied research and to give near-market research the credibility, status and value given to fundamental research. They should give applied research a more rational and therefore a more equal level of funding compared with the funding that traditional research currently enjoys.
Clearly, the former polytechnics, which have done so remarkably well academically, can be beacons of light for some of our ancient educational institutions in terms of technological, near-market research. We need as a nation to look again at the funding methodologies for research in our educational establishments. The Higher Education Funding Council for England gives a weighting for funding applied research of excellence of only one third of that given for basic research of excellence. I do not know how that can possibly be justified and the people of Essex expect me to fight in the House for a more rational balance in the funding of the different phases of research.
Indeed, the HEFCE has even suggested, albeit tentatively, that applied research may not be recognised at all for funding. That would militate against the former

polytechnics which Are now forming a new platform of university excellence. Sadly, they can currently expect to receive little recognition of their research from the HEFCE, as much of it is applied. Such a policy is part of the British disease. I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends agree with me on the matter.
Our research students are often encouraged to believe that a theoretical paper published in a good academic journal is of more value than a product brought to the marketplace. I would agree with that if I were a Japanese industrialist feeding off the papers and taking other people's efforts to the marketplace for my own Japanese benefit, but I cannot agree with that as someone who has responsibility for finding ways in which to fund a better health service, better and more education, and improved pensions, which could be done by developing a competitive economy. That means a dynamic manufacturing sector and more effective near-market research—as they say, "QED".
The Higher Education Funding Council for England should fund strategic and applied research that is linked to a national framework of economic objectives within a visionary strategy for growth and employment for industry and the economy. Industry should be encouraged to collaborate with academia in near-market research using industrial and commercial specifications for that research.
Such a process would very quickly become self-sustaining as industry gained confidence in the service that it received. That should lead to the new universities benefiting from much greater dual funding than they currently enjoy in comparison with the ancient universities. The new universities should develop close and sensible partnerships and relationships with industry.
As time is short, I will refer to my next two points briefly and raise them as issues to which we should return as part of the general debate. The first of those issues is a national framework for research funding that recognises areas for applied and near-market research that are likely to have the most desirable and internationally marketable outcomes.
The second issue is the scope for improved education and training opportunities in science and technology and the need for a national framework and objectives that will promote engineering and technology as more desirable options. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North called for options for students from A-level through to higher research.
We must strive to increase the status of engineers and I recommend a review and study of the German model whereby engineers are educated in an integrated way with industry. Hon. Members may be aware that I have been promoting differential student grants and the emergence of statutory registration for engineers and technologies as part of the move to improve the status of engineers and engineering in our society.
I am not surprised that hon. Members say that I would say that anyway. I acknowledge that I have a vested interest in the matter as I am a simple engineer. I should be pleased if my hon. Friend the Minister could comment on the Government's view of statutory registration of engineers.
The aims of the Finniston report were excellent, but sadly it failed in its delivery. The report failed to deliver


primarily due to a lack of ownership and commitment by industry and, I am sad to say, a distinct lack of enthusiasm and promotion in the House.
I am aware that the Engineering Council is addressing that question from the industrial viewpoint, and I welcome that. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in encouraging the council in that endeavour. I trust also that the boards of all research funding agencies and councils are exercised by the arguments in favour of near-market research that have been set out in this debate.

Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on having the wit and wisdom to choose this topic and, even more so, on having it at a reasonable time rather than at 2 or 3 am. I notice that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is to reply to the debate. I understand that, when he replies, he will be halfway through his triple. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will owe my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State something for his presence for this triple-decker.
In each of the past three or four years, I have delivered what I would call my annual manufacturing speech—and, until the last autumn statement, more in hope than in expectation. As the years rolled by, my speech developed a stereotype nature. It had one major advantage—I did not have to update it much, except the figures. The message of my speech was the importance of manufacturing as the basis of our major economic activity and the need for targeted support if we were to match foreign competition. I advanced the same case until the autumn statement.
I sincerely hope that the autumn statement has signalled a shift in policy towards manufacturing and industry in the Treasury's long-term thinking. I use the word "hope", because I want to believe that the targeting of various levels of support schemes within the time limits set out in the autumn statement is the start of a long-term policy. I hope that the targeting of such schemes is not simply a short-term measure to alleviate the recession, after which we will return to the previous policy of creating a uniform regime which covers every manufacturing and commercial sector in the United Kingdom—the proverbial level playing field, with no distortions, no anomalies, no recognition of overseas competition, and theory which is untroubled and untrammelled by practice.
In 1979, I welcomed as enthusiastically as anybody else the moves to shake up our rather sluggish and inefficient industrial base. Over the next eight to nine years, I welcomed, as did everybody else, the fact that management was released to manage, restructure and defeat restricted practices. In that time, quality and productivity rose and efficiency improved. The state-owned industrial bastions of inefficiency, ruled by the political lunchtime directive, moved into the private sector. In a short period, the United Kingdom stopped being the sick man of Europe: it showed a distinct improvement in economic health.
The time then came to move to the next stage. A gulf of understanding had to be bridged between those who lived in the theoretical world of economic models and forecasts—in the worlds of Samuel Johnson and those whose knowledge of the world is strained through books—and

those who lived in the real world of industry and commerce. The real world which I am talking about is the one in which people have to find the wages on Friday night; in which one is out of a job and could lose one's house if one fails. I am talking about the world that provides the basis on which the theoretical world rests and draws the revenue.
I said earlier that I hoped that the autumn statement has signalled a change in policy which will give the various industrial sectors matching and targeted support to compete in the export and import substitution markets equally. That is absolute common sense to the business manager, because he or she uses a whole range of incentives and selective treatments to cure problems and make his or her business grow. There are few cases in which a blanket solution solves all problems. More often, problems are like a cake: one divides it into slices and deals with each slice individually. In that way, one solves the overall problem.
I am aware of the time contraints this evening, so I will not embark on my next point in any depth whatever, except to say that, with the single market coming and the transfer of taxpayers' goods throughout the European Community, the Government will have to examine two matters: first, extending the VAT tax base and, secondly, examining differential VAT rates. I quote as an example what is happening to our horse racing at present.
It would be nice to think that we could have a simple, overall, blanket solution of one VAT rate at the top end and then the zero exempt rate. However, I do not believe that we can live in such a world. If we are in the European Community, either the other member states must change or we must change. We simply cannot survive by hitting certain people with 17·5 per cent. while somebody else pays the penalty of only 5 per cent.
The transferability of goods means that we must examine that change. I do not like it; I do not want it; but I move away from the theory into the real and practical world. It will mean that every sector of industry has its own market problems which must be tackled individually. That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I am delighted that he has reconstituted the 15 industrial sectors which will look at each of those areas of industry in detail.
Overall, there will also be a division to study world best manufacturing practice and how that information can be best distributed and implemented within the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether it is above or intermingled with the 15 industrial sectors, but it will be called the industrial competitive division. It is under the control of Professor Dobbe—that is spelt D-o-b-b-e, for the sake of the people up in Hansard, so that they do not have to send me a little note. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you can reprimand me if you wish. You will be absolutely right. We are not under too much pressure here this evening.
From the work of the industrial competitive division will come a much more detailed knowledge of how our competitors operate and how we can provide our industry with that equalising factor. That does not mean politicians picking winners. They could not pick a winner in a one horse race. It means the abandonment of our previous policy of unilateral industrial disarmament. It did not work for defence, and I see absolutely no reason why it should work for manufacturing.
More information will emerge from that division. It will examine world best practices and target our resources. That will give us a greater chance of success. I take one example from our industrial competitors abroad—the machine tool sector in Japan. Every two years, a sector is targeted for support. The Government choose specific objectives which thay want that sector to achieve.
In 1980–82, energy efficiency in manufacturing machine tools and companies employing fewer than 1,000 people were targeted. In 1985–89, the Government targeted investment in new technologies using CNC machines and gave support to it. The Government targeted support to specific areas in a series of years. Everyone knows that increases in quality and productivity and success in the marketplace flow from the advances being made in machine production techniques. So the emphasis on machine tools is not entirely surprising.
The Japanese are not alone in giving support to specific areas of industry. I understand that the Italians have a £0·75 billion programme of support for small and medium companies. Some 25 per cent. grant is given towards purchase, and low rates of interest are made available. In Portugal, the Government give money towards certain forms of moulding machines. One could go on and on producing examples in the machine world.
I hesitate to produce other examples to the House, but one need only consider shipping. Help for shipping is even more widespread. Certain Governments have introduced measures to compensate for the widening of the cost gap between European and third world crews. For example, some Governments have reduced social security payments for employers of national seafarers. I have here a list of comparisons with other countries. Exemptions from seafarers' income tax in full or in part, with varying conditions, are available in Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Sweden—and the list goes on.
We must begin to consider varying our terms and conditions if we want to compete. Lacking such support, what have we seen? Barely 1 per cent. of the world's shipping now sails under the British flag. We are down to 27th place. In a parallel fashion, there is concern about the age of our fleet. Questions must be asked, such as whether roll-over relief should be considered if we are to stay in the same game.
If anyone thinks that I am dealing only with Europe or the east, I also have details of American subsidies. According to the Financial Times on 12 November, the
US faces the prospect of being taken to task by Gatt, after an extraordinary formal admission of the considerable export credit insurance subsidies it provides to exporters.
The article gives four or five examples of other countries where support has been given. The actions of our foreign competitors in the world market bring my remarks full circle, as I hope that the autumn statement has introduced an on-going policy of time-limited, targeted support for industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has already mentioned the most excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), to the Institute of Export on 25 November, and that gave the framework. I hope that the industrial competitiveness division, which has 15 sectors under observation, will start to colour in the squares.
In some quarters of the House, hon. Members believe that, if we can get the macro-economic formula right, all benefits will flow. I have to disillusion them fully. Life is not like that—it is the nitty-gritty, piece-by-piece attention to detail which will bring things right and win.
The President of the Board of Trade has told the story of the Japanese company going round a British steel-making company. The Japanese company carried out the same process but was more profitable. On leaving, the Japanese asked, "Would you mind if we made a few suggestions?" The company director said, "I would be delighted." The Japanese firm produced 50 items. For example, it said, "You take too much steel for testing—you do not need to take a foot of steel, as three inches will do and you open the furnace door wide open, when you only need to open it a few inches, as that saves heat." Those examples show the nitty-gritty and attention to detail that give companies efficiency and an edge.
I have abandoned my previous speech. The autumn statement has moved the game on, and this will be my standard speech until those sectors are coloured in and efficiencies are obtained. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for bringing the subject to the attention of the House.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to intervene in the debate briefly, in view of the hour and the limited time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on his luck in the ballot. I have put in for a debate on a number of occasions, but have not been able to get anywhere near the luxurious position of being able to talk not long after midnight, if not before it. I congratulate him on choosing such an excellent subject. We cannot spend too much time in the House debating engineering.
I declare an interest, as before coming to the House my career was entirely in the engineering industry. There used to be two other members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the House, but I regret that that is no longer the case. We lost the late David Penhaligon, the former Member for Truro, which was a great sadness to us all. I enjoyed debating with him when he was here. The loss of my noble Friend Lord Hayhoe, the former right hon. Member for Isleworth and Brentford, is a gain for the other House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) said that one has to remember what it is like at the sharp end, when one has to pay the wages every week. That is the position which I faced when I started my own business, and I still face it, although I am glad that my wife is principally concerned with the business on a day-to-day basis.
The debate is timely in view of the fact that the Institution of Mechanical Engineers is judging the finals of the manufacturing effectiveness awards tomorrow, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be there to present the prizes, which have a total value of £20,000. There is a £10,000 prize for the outright winner and a £5,000 prize for the winner of the small firms category—firms with up to 200 employees. Eight firms have reached the semi-final stage and I was delighted to see that two of them are north-west companies: British Aerospace, and Thorn Fire Protection in Oldham.
The other firms include Footprints Tools of Sheffield; GEC Alsthom of Rugby; which is through to the final four; Hayward Tyler Sumo of Kilbride; Johnston Engineering of Dorking, which is also through to the final four; Nautech Ltd of Portsmouth; Rexel Business Machines Ltd of Droitwich, which is through to the final four and is the outright small firms winner, as it is the only small firm to have reached the final four. Thorn Fire Protection is the fourth firm to have reached the finals.
I have the good fortune to be on the judging panel to select the winner from those four finalists. I have been delighted to read the contributions made by those four companies and I recommend that all hon. Members who have participated in this debate read those stimulating entries, which show exactly what can be done in this country and the excellence that can be achieved by our firms. They all talk of substantial increases in their share of world markets and give evidence of how this country has increased its share of the world markets in recent years. After decades of decline through the 1960s and 1970s, we are at last seeing an overall increase in our share of trade.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here, but I recently showed him some figures giving this country's total share of both visible and invisible trade. I recommend that hon. Members look at those figures, which are available from the Library. The lastest figures that I have show that in 1990 this country's share of total visible and invisible trade amounted to 13·2 per cent., an increase from 12·1 per cent. the year before and 11·5 per cent. the year before that. It is made up of visible trade of 8·6 per cent. and invisible trade of 16·9 per cent. We should not worry whether we earn our wealth through visible or invisible trade, because it all contributes to our standard of living. As we have a higher share of invisible trade, which is the fastest growing sector of world trade, it gives us a better basis for increasing our share in future.
May I quote some of the points made by Thorn Fire Protection as an example of a north-west firm. I am delighted that the north west is so well represented this evening. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) are both present and may like to hear of some of the points that Thorn Fire Protection made in its excellent submission. We do not know who will win tomorrow, but I am sure that Thorn will be given strong consideration on the basis of its excellent written submission in advance of its full presentation tomorrow.
The submission says that the company
has a turnover of over £30 million and employs 1,000 people in the UK
and that
The significant improvement in the business over the 6 year period is the result of visionary thinking started in 1985 with the aim of becoming the 'Best in the Business'.
It says that the
changes since 1985 have enabled the company to grow in turnover at a compound rate of around 15 per cent. per year
giving a return on net assets of 30 per cent. and profit-to-sales ratio of more than 10 per cent. The submission goes on:
In terms of market share, the company currently holds No. 1 position for manufacturing output and No. 2 in fire extinguisher servicing within Europe.

There has been a total transformation in the company's Oldham factory from its traditional "fire-fighting" mode to "excellence in extinguisher manufacturing". The submission says:
The Oldham manufacturing operation has moved up in its ranking from 6th to No. 1 position for output volumes, productivity and stock turns compared to its counterparts within Europe … The original concept for change required a great deal of creative thinking and a visionary approach. Right at the outset, the change programme was seen as a long haul, with no short cut route to success and requiring sustained commitment and support from the top.
The report shows how its service branch network has improved its stock turns from about six times a year to in excess of 20. On quality and the way in which it has motivated its staff, it shows that it has involved the shopfloor employees through "Kaizen"—a Japanese word meaning continuous improvement. In that way it has motivated its staff through involvement and created team spirit—a key success factor.
The report uses a memorable phrase on quality. It states that the management team's belief is that
Quality is a journey and not a destination".
That should be borne in mind by everyone who is involved in manufacturing industry.
I thought that I would use that example to show how firms in the United Kingdom, particularly the north-west, have been able to improve their positions substantially in recent years, due to the success of Government policies, which have enabled management to focus on the job of managing. That company has brought itself up from number six in Europe to number one in a climate where the number of days lost through strikes has dropped from the high figures experienced under the last Labour Government to the lowest figure since records began 100 years ago.
I am confident that the engineering industry will be able to go from strength to strength and management will be able to demonstrate that it can make companies in this country the best in the world. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, who has done so much to bring engineering to the attention of the House, will continue to be successful in the ballots.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—with whom I have been spending rather a lot of time recently—on choosing the subject for debate. At a constituency level I have great interest in the topic as my constituency houses Trafford park, which is still one of the leading centres of engineering industry in this country. Its traditions are desperately important—it is a source of both employment and economic success, for the city and the country.
The engineering industry is fundamental to this country's future. We have heard four interesting speeches. We always say that debates in the House are interesting—some are more interesting than others—but tonight's has been. All four speeches have been slightly different in structure and have mentioned different aspects.
I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and the gentle, mocking irony with which he spoke of the Government. He rightly said that nobody would seek to deny the strategic importance


of the manufacturing sector. He also said that it had been supported by 10 years of Conservative government. As an oblique attack on the Ministers, his must be one of the more subtle ways of sticking the knife into Ministers' backs.

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he welcomes the increase in unit productivity that we have achieved in the manufacturing sector over the past decade?

Mr. Lloyd: When the hon. Gentleman says "we have achieved", I trust that he includes both sides of industry. Some of the credit should go to those who are still in employment and who have made considerable sacrifices.
I should place on record a less rose-coloured view of Britain's manufacturing sector, particularly the engineering sector. The facts—borne out by many of the professional and employer-led organisations in engineering, not just employees—show that engineering in particular and manufacturing in general have been in decline for the past 20 years. The present recession has badly hurt British industry. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that.
While engineering represented 11·8 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1979, when the present Government came to power, by the middle of 1990, the level had dropped to 9·4 per cent.—a significant decline. Since the recession began in 1989, there has been a 13 per cent. fall in engineering output. That is tragic for the nation and for the individuals involved. Those people have seen their employment base in engineering shrink from 3·3 million to about 2 million. These are highly skilled people, with skills that should have been updated. Even the employers reckon that about 55,000 more jobs will go in the next year.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that people were bullish about the future of the industry. I have with me numerous press cuttings in which people roundly condemn the Government's role in the industry and express their concerns for the future. One states that engineering confidence has been "shot to pieces". Suppliers to collieries, especially the Association of British Mining Equipment Companies, talk of the loss of 120,000 jobs in their industry as a result of the destruction of the mining industry by the so-called interventionist President of the Board of Trade. That industry alone has a turnover of £900 million a year.
The director-general of the Engineering Employers Federation has said that engineering skills are going to waste in this recession, threatening Britain's longer-term ability to compete. He added that a Government policy
of waiting for something to turn up is demonstrably not going to provide the sort of positive results industry has the right to expect.
So engineering is hardly a success story at the moment. It is rather a story of Government incompetence and failure to act in partnership with the industry. That failure has cost the nation and those employed in the industry dear.
Ironically, because of the nation's and the industry's failure to train, we face the almost unique calamity of an erosion of skills at the same time as a significant skills shortage. An article in today's Birmingham Evening Mail carries an interview with the managing director of a bolt-making firm, Bauer and Schauerte Kaucher, who has

been trying for six months to recruit four skilled setters to work some new high-technology forging machines. Mr. Gevals Hammond said that he had thought that
soaring unemployment would make it easy to fill the jobs.
'We know we are paying a very competitive rate and a generous bonus scheme, but in the current climate experienced workers with the skills we are looking for are reluctant to risk losing possible redundancy pay off by leaving existing jobs.'".
So people are afraid for their futures, and the mobility that the industry needs is being ripped away because of these uncertainties.
There are severe skills shortages in the electrical engineering and capital goods sectors alongside high levels of unemployment. Those shortages spell future capacity and output downturns which will threaten the competitiveness of the industry. The uncertainties lead in turn to a reluctance by the industry to train people and to invest—and that feeds back into the skills shortages that created the problem in the first place. So we are trapped, not in the bullish market described by Conservative Members, but in a vicious circle that will cost the nation dear.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North was right about the need to train engineers. If we are to increase the amount of research and development in the productive end of the industry, we need highly trained engineers and technicians. We need them to perform a new role; to sustain and increase our R and D in areas such as product and process development. Only that will bring about the long-term competitive edge that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is not even beginning to happen at the moment. The statistics describing the state of the British industry make for a sad comparison with those of our competitors. We know that the United Kingdom's capital stock is much older than that of competitor nations. In Japan, the average fixed asset life is six years, compared with decades-old machinery that still exists in British engineering and elsewhere.
Japanese investment is led very much by a confidence in the future that British industry does not have. That confidence is also absent in the training of our young people. That begins at school. There is an acute shortage of teachers for science and technical subjects that are so important as the fundamental base of the engineering industry.
A very low number of young people in the post-16 group stay on at school. We fall far behind Germany and Japan in that respect. The Japanese and French train three times as many craftsmen and women in mechanical and electrical engineering and in construction. Britain would have to train an extra 50,000 young people a year to catch up with the Japanese and the French, and an extra 80,000 a year to catch up with the Germans. That is the kind of task that our nation must set itself and achieve.
Conservative Members should not be deceived by their own propaganda, because the situation is much more worrying than they suggest. Under the German dual system, to which the hon. Member for Castle Point drew attention, 600,000 people are trained every year, and it strips away the artificial divide between academia and vocational training. Germans view with amazement the kind of educational system that we have. We have a lot to learn, and we should not be blind to the achievements of the German system.
Seventy per cent. of those who pass through the dual system gain a qualification, and 30 per cent. of those who


start dual training already have qualifications higher than our present A-levels. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that the German qualification is downgraded. It is a high-status qualification and one which we should seek to emulate.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman's whole diatribe is centred on how much better other countries are than our own. I do not believe that it is all a one-way business. Obviously we can learn from others in the world, but the Engineering Employers Federation states that engineer training in this country is better than in Germany.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman refers to my diatribe, but it is a diatribe of fact. If he will say which of the facts that I stated he considers inaccurate, I shall be happy to debate the matter with him. The hon. Gentleman says that the Engineering Employers Federation states that the training given in Britain is better than that in Germany. I will not enter into an argument about whether British training is better, although I will return to that theme later.
It is certain, however, that the Germans are training many more—that a much larger number of young people in Germany are studying for a higher qualification. Even if the hon. Gentleman is right to say British training is better, such small numbers are involved, at such a specialised level, that it is a little dangerous and self-deluding to have the idea that we are competing with the Germans. The hon. Gentleman should view with concern the figures that I gave.
Britain is found lacking in the whole area of industrial training. There has been a large cut, of about 45 per cent., in the money provided by training and enterprise councils since 1988. On previous occasions, I have expressed severe doubts about the quality of training provided by the TEC system. I believe that Conservative Members at least share my view that those who pass through our academic and vocational systems must be of the highest quality.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) that Britain should produce the best engineers and technicians in the world. If we are to do that, however, we must begin to establish some basic facts.
One of those facts is that this country does not invest enough in training and education for our young people—both generally, and in manufacturing and engineering specifically. An anti-manufacturing culture has existed here for some years, and the position was not helped by Lord Lawson when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Conservative Members will recall, for many years he told the House that manufacturing was concerned with the smokestack industries; the future, he said, was in services.
The future can never be in services in that glib sense. Services have an important role, and no one wishes to knock that role; but it is a matter of statistical fact that, for every 1 per cent. of manufacturing exports that we lose, we would have to increase exports of services by 3 per cent. We still depend very much on manufacturing, but there is real doubt about whether our manufacturing base is large enough to sustain the size of our economy. We must rectify that: we must begin to train, and we must give a commitment that the funds will be there to make the training available. Those funds must come both from central Government and from the private sector.
It is instructive to note that when Labour spoke a t the last general election of the need for a training levy, it was

in touch not only with the views of Jacques Delors—who introduced a similar system in France some 20 years ago: that system works, albeit at a much higher level than we propose—but with those of Sir Brian Wolfson, chairman of the national training task force. He recently called on the Cabinet to abandon its philosophy of "voluntarism", and to introduce a compulsory levy on company payrolls to ensure that money was spent on training. Sir Brian's comments echoed some recent remarks by Sir Richard Layard at the Economic and Social Research Council: Sir Richard said that Britain would continue to provide a vast army of "lumpenproletarians" unless the state invested more in training.
We need a commitment that the Government have not been prepared to give in the past. Time after time, without that driving force and without a levy, the private sector will regard investment in training as a negotiable cost which can be cut in a period of recession. Earlier this year, the Department of Employment's own survey of training made it clear that the private sector had cut its investment for that reason.
We need to overhaul our attitude to manufacturing and, in particular, to engineering. We need to develop a culture that views manufacturing and engineering as a strong and significant element, and which appreciates that people with an engineering background, such as the hon. Member for Castle Point, have something real to say to the House and the country. We must turn away from the outdated view that accountants and lawyers should run our industry; we must develop the manufacturing culture, and invest in it. Sadly, however, there are no signs as yet that the Government intend to do that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on his initiative in giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I regret that I cannot claim to be an engineer myself, although my father was one; I am a humble lawyer, and my only connection with the world of nuts and bolts has been the occasional throwing of a spanner into the works over the years.
The importance of engineers and engineering in industry is, however, undoubted: many hon. Members have made plain their support for that proposition tonight. Engineers, of course, have a profound effect on the economy, wealth creation and everyday life. Although we are most conscious of their contribution to the engineering industry, they also make a major contribution to all aspects of business life. Their skills and training are necessary ingredients in management and the successful operation of modern companies, stretching well beyond what we recognise as the engineering sector.
The engineering sector is of major importance to the United Kingdom, and the annual sales of the United Kingdom engineering industry are estimated at more than £100 billion, with more than £50 billion-worth of exports in 1991. The engineering industry's output accounts for 42 per cent. of our manufacturers' gross domestic product. The sector employs some 2 million people, and we depend


on the skills and ingenuity of our engineers, often without even realising it. It is too easy to undervalue their important contribution to almost every walk of life.
People with the right blend of skills are vital to our industry, and if our industry is to benefit most from recovery, we must fully develop and train our engineers and technologists. Our engineers need to be of the highest quality. They must be innovative and highly motivated. Our industry must have access to the latest engineering technology and must make the best possible use of it.
The message must go wider than our engineering industry, however. If our engineers are to play their full part in underpinning long-term growth, our financial institutions need to understand engineering and make good use of their talents. We must examine and learn from the best engineering practice around the world. Unless all sectors of industry and commerce use engineering skills to the full, our potential for wealth creation will suffer and our bright ideas will be left on the shelf or, worse still, will be exploited by others.
If we are to strengthen our productive performance, we need to break out of the damaging and outdated thinking about practical work. For too long, our culture has undermined practical work—even in the case of a discipline as vital and intellectually demanding as engineering. The solution to that problem lies in a partnership between education, the engineering professional institutions, employers and Government.
Stepping outside my departmental responsibilities to an area which is immensely important to trade and wealth creation, the training of our engineers must start as early as possible and it must continue, through full-time education and training, in a lifetime's process of learning. I mention first the initiatives that the Government have taken in schools, where the development begins. By 1995, all pupils aged 16—girls as well as boys—will have followed the national curriculum throughout their secondary education. They will thus all have studied technology. Similarly, all those who reach 16 in 1994 will have studied science. Gone are the bad old days when pupils could drop such subjects by their own choice or perhaps at parental whim. That remarkable change should boost the long-term take-up of engineering as a subject and a career.
We are always seeking ways to improve, however. The Department of Education is currently undertaking a review of technology, and that should improve further the preparation for continuing studies in engineering and other disciplines. In addition, the technology schools initiative encourages schools to provide specialised supplementary courses with vocational relevance. Such courses are designed to allow pupils with particular aptitude for technology to build on the subjects covered in the national curriculum.
The role of vocational qualifications has not been neglected. In the past, there has been great confusion about the types and levels of vocational qualifications. It has been a veritable jungle. We are cutting through that jungle with a new system of national vocational qualifications. The NVQs fit into a comprehensive framework. They are based on national standards, which define the skills, knowledge and understanding that employers need, and the employers are closely involved in

their development. The options for gaining NVQs are varied: they can be obtained at school, in sixth form and further education colleges and by study at work. NVQs are made up of units which can be added together and which allow individuals to become qualified at their own pace.
Many NVQs are already available in science and technology subjects—for example, power station operation, pharmaceutical processing and aircraft maintenance. The Government strongly support the national education and training targets, which include critical goals for NVQs both for those in education and for those in work. For example, one aim is that 50 per cent. of young people should reach NVQ level 3 by the year 2000. That work is crucial to the United Kingdom's ability to compete with the best in the world.
For 16 to 19-year-olds, there remains the traditional route into university by means of A-levels. We have also introduced the general national vocational qualification, which should provide a further route into universities, whether of the old or of the new variety. We want universities to encourage the use of GNVQs as an entry method. That will provide greater opportunities for students to obtain a broader, vocationally relevant qualification. GNVQs will provide some general direction to students' career paths, which may well be in technology, but will not close off paths prematurely.
The further education sector also received a boost in the half billion pound increase in education funding announced in the autumn statement. That extra support will increase dramatically—by about 250,000—the number of students in further education. We expect within two years to have more than 1 million people studying in further education. That will provide many more young people with the technical skills that industry needs. It will also help to lift us to the top of the international league table for 16 to 19-year-olds staying on in education over the next three years.
In higher education we have already acted to ensure that there is no shortage of engineering places. There have been two specific initiatives—the engineering technology programme and the manufacturing systems engineering initiative. The latter initiative, for example, has brought together traditional engineering knowledge and skills with the use of management systems. It has been a success, and courses have been enrolled above their targets. That initiative has been carefully evaluated and a report will be available shortly.
Industry and commerce need senior people who have engineering knowledge and experience—people who look wider than the figures on the balance sheet, people who will look beyond the short term, and people who understand the processes of product design and manufacture. Engineers have the potential to climb the ladder to the top of companies. They understand the technology and its capabilities, but engineers need to be able to participate in all business activities, including management, and our university degree courses must offer that integrated style of education. Some universities already do so; others must follow.
Although the number of student places has been increased, the demand has not been so high as we would have liked. However, it is pleasing to note that applications to 1992 engineering and technology degree courses were up on those for 1991. We must all work to ensure that that demand continues to grow.
Universities must play a part in attracting and retaining young people. Science and technology education must be made an attractive option. We already have some of the most outstanding science and engineering courses in the world, but all our universities must seek to attain that same high standard if they are to attract the best students in the numbers that industry needs. It is not for the Government, of course, to tell young people which courses to take. The Government have a role, but schools, teachers, career advisers, parents and society generally all have their parts to play. Engineering must be seen as a worthwhile career option which leads to stimulating and rewarding job opportunities. In the United Kingdom, that requires a culture change. In Germany and Japan, the engineer is highly valued, and we must do the same if the United Kingdom is to prosper.
There is, of course, a key role for employers to show that engineering and technology skills lead to rewarding and satisfying careers for young men and women. They must transmit the right signals about engineers to the whole of society. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that the manufacturing sector still has a poor image among final year undergraduate engineers, and the most commercially minded of them intend to leave engineering. That clearly brings into question that sector's ability to recruit the high-calibre engineers whom it needs.
Most of all, we need a commitment from companies to increase job quality for young engineers and provide early opportunities for them to take responsibility. I understand the constraints, particularly in a recession, but there is also the need for employers to provide and maintain competitive pay and to give it full publicity as a factor in image building. There is evidence that more employers are recognising that. The pay of new graduate engineers has risen over the past few years, but that remains an important element in increasing the professional status and the social standing of engineers.
Knowledge and skills are at a premium in today's economies. In the United Kingdom, we have made large investments in the scientific and technological research and skills in our universities. The research and skills are first rate and acknowledged as such by the world's science and engineering communities. They are a national asset which should be developed and used. There is a clear need for a constructive partnership between our educational institutions and industry and commerce. That partnership should be a two-way street. Industry can make enormous gains by exploiting the technology and expertise that our research has produced. At the same time, British industry and commerce must play their part in assisting our higher education institutions to become as industry-oriented as possible.
The Department of Trade and Industry supports a number of schemes which serve to foster links between the academic world and industry at different levels. Those schemes include Link, which encourages collaborative research, equipment schemes which help colleges to re-equip their laboratories with up-to-date technology, and expansion of the Shell technology enterprise programme which places second-year undergraduates in companies for eight weeks. A number of our schemes encourage the exchange of people—they are the best vehicles for transferring technology—so that companies can exploit the wealth of knowledge and technology in our science and engineering base.
I will give one example to demonstrate that point. The highly successful teaching company scheme is widely recognised as an effective vehicle for providing bright young graduates with practical industry-oriented training. It does that by placing them in companies, of which more than 60 per cent. are small and medium-sized enterprises, to perform strategic technology projects. They work under the supervision of industrialists and academics. The teaching company scheme also serves to transfer technology from our universities into industry and begins the process of establishing long-lasting links between companies and higher education institutions. The teaching companies scheme is sponsored jointly by the DTI and the Science and Engineering Research Council, along with a number of other participants. It has a budget of about £14 million this year with more than 450 live programmes.
We should note the important contribution of the engineering profession. More than 40 professional institutions represent professional engineers of different disciplines. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Industry will meet the presidents of four of those institutions in January. My right hon. Friends are looking forward to hearing, at first hand, their views on some of the central issues for engineering. I also know that the Royal Academy of Engineering works hard to promote engineering and to raise its status. It was highly appropriate that the President of the Board of Trade spoke at the recent dinner celebrating the academy's change of name. He warmly congratulated it on being granted permission to show its royal patronage in its title. That is surely a sign that our culture is beginning to value its engineers.
It has long been recognised that fragmentation does not serve the profession well. The barriers between the engineering disciplines, as practised in industry, are beginning to break down. A more unified approach to the engineering profession would therefore seem sensible. It is for that reason that I warmly welcome the recent initiative by Sir John Fairclough in conjunction with the Council of Presidents. They are considering how the profession could be organised so as to focus more sharply on the big issues that it faces. The DTI is providing half the cost of a secondee to assist in the work and I look forward eagerly to the results of their consultations and discussions when they appear next year.
In that context, we should not forget the work of the Engineering Council. One of its objectives is
to promote the status and practice of engineering with a view to improving competitiveness.
The Government supported its establishment with initial pump priming of almost £3 million in three years as grant in aid. The council has a range of continuing activities. It maintains and develops the register of 290,000 chartered engineers, incorporated engineers and engineering technicians. It operates through education and training initiatives to ensure that industry's needs are met. It also runs schemes, seminars and conferences to promote the career image of the profession.
The DTI has provided specific financial assistance for some of that important work—for example, the neighbourhood engineers scheme. That scheme aims to secure closer links between practising engineers and secondary schools, to assist with project work in the curriculum and to foster the understanding of the role of


engineers by schoolchildren, their parents and teachers. It currently involves more than 7,500 engineers in nearly 2,000 schools.
It is also important to note one other initiative that the Engineering Council runs—Women Into Science and Engineering, which was launched in 1984. The intention is to help—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Cammell Laird Shipbuilders

Ms. Angela Eagle: The future of Cammell Laird has been in the news recently because of the announcement two weeks ago by its current owners, Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering Ltd., that it had effectively given up the ghost. It said that it would no longer seek orders once the current order book runs out in June next year.
The Cammell Laird yard, which is an important and historic yard in my part of the world, the Wirral, will finally close its doors after 160 years. That time has been marked by the yard's and its employees' record of vital service and achievement in the interests of the country.
When we consider what the future of that yard might be, we appreciate its central achievements. It has led the way in shipbuilding, and was a byword for innovation. In its time, the Cammell Laird yard has been at the forefront of shipbuilding techniques—it was on the cusp of their evolution. It was at the forefront of the switch from wooden ships to iron ones, from sails to steam, from riveting to welding. It is also noticeable that its history has been marked by a regular mix of merchant and military shipbuilding. Its exclusive concentration on military building may have led to its current difficulties, to which I shall refer later.
When it was founded in 1824, the shipyard was based in my constituency, but in 1858 it moved to its current site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Mr. Frank Field: I think that I am right in saying that my hon. Friend's constituency did not exist then.

Ms. Eagle: I always believe in progress. I am happy that that progress was made, because it is probably why I am here today.
In the second world war, the yard built 106 fighting ships—one for every 20 days of the war. Such service must not be thrown away lightly. At its peak, the work force totalled 12,000, but 1992 was the first year this century when it fell below 2,000. Indeed, the only other time when the work force dropped below 2,000 was in 1931, at the height of the great depression. The next few months will be vital to the yard.
In 1977, the shipyard was nationalised as part of British Shipbuilders and the decision was made to concentrate more on military contracts. That concentration may have caused its present difficulties. Its magnificent covered construction yard, which is still one of the finest in the world, was built the year after.
When the yard was denationalised in 1985, it was bought for only £1, and the value placed on it by VSEL still rankles in the local area. There were two problems with the settlement. The first was that, as it was designated exclusively as a warship yard, it did not have access to the intervention fund. Although some may disagree about its current predicament, no one would argue that that lack of access has been a major problem. Secondly, because of its designation as a warship yard, it has been badly affected by the unforeseen but welcome developments summed up in "Options for Change" in the post-cold-war world.
It can be argued that VSEL had a fundamental conflict of interest when it took over the yard, because, naturally,


it wanted to preserve its yard at Barrow, and it has always been suspected that it had a vested interest in not exerting itself too much to save shipbuilding on the Mersey. That is still a problem. I believe that the closure announcement gives the yard a window of opportunity to get away from that deadly embrace and to try to make its future elsewhere. The closure announcement was a pretty stark example of the company giving up the ghost and signalling to all that it would no longer try to get work after next June.
In a debate only last week, I spoke in detail about the economic effects of the closure on the local area. I described them as devastating, which they are. During the 1980s, the Wirral area lost 15 per cent. of its manufacturing employment. One of the greatest declines in the standard industrial classifications during that era was the 22 per cent. decline in the shipbuilding, engineering and vehicle sector, and that had a bad effect on the yard.
The closure would not only lead directly to the loss of 1,000 jobs; the local council estimates that it would lead indirectly to a further loss of up to 6,000 jobs, threatening 600 local suppliers. Lairds had always supported the local area and bought its materials locally. It is estimated that the closure could withdraw up to £30 million in spending power from the local economy, and could lead overnight to a 2 per cent. increase in the local unemployment rate.
In my constituency of Wallasey, the unemployment rates are well above the national average-18 per cent. male unemployment and 7 per cent. female unemployment, making an overall rate of about 14 per cent. We must also realise that the loss of full-time jobs for men, which are either not replaced or are replaced by low-paid part-time work which usually goes to women, has a profound effect on the social fabric of the area. We must take account of that.
It has been estimated that the closure of the yard will cost the public purse £111·1 million in the first year. Moreover, the costs would continue. To support that level of unemployment, there would be more social security payments, lost production and capacity, and lost tax revenues. I repeat that the economic effects of the closure do not bear thinking about. It would be the economics of the madhouse to proceed with it. We must look for a way round it, and do what we can to save that vital local manufacturing and employment base.
The way in which the closure was arranged is interesting, and may reveal some of the other motives for VSEL's behaviour. We must note that VSEL's most recent six-month profits have increased by more than £3.5 million this year compared with those for 1991. That makes one wonder exactly what is going on in the firm.
The company envisages the destruction of the yard and its shipbuilding facilities within two years. With the help of outside consultants St. Quintin, it has produced a plan for the future—a plan in which I am afraid I have little confidence. It not only suggests the destruction of the Lairds yard within two years, but says that, after the yard closes next June, there will be minimum security. To suggest that such a facility need not be guarded properly makes a mockery of the idea that the option for the yard to reopen within two years is being retained. In such a dockland area, lack of security would quickly lead to a flourishing black market and the illegal destruction and

vandalism of the remaining facilities. The idea of minimum security is an important clue to the real motives behind VSEL's plans.
VSEL plans to destroy the production shops immediately. As the St. Quintin report says, that would be done to reduce the rateable liability. That could be good for VSEL—but what is good for VSEL is not necessarily good for the local community, or for the country. I believe that the company is planning to asset-strip the yard, and at the same time to destroy a potential competitor. VSEL does not want the yard to pass out of its hands and to be able to bid against it for scarce work. We must take account of VSEL's possible vested interest in the matter and prevent it from fulfilling its plan.
The St. Quintin's report says that the future for the site is not for it to continue to build ships, which is what it is clearly good at, and which is what its facilities and its work force can do; but that there should be an effort once more to develop office blocks, light industry and retail on the site, with some housing. Yet the property market in the area is appalling. The St. Quintin's report admits:
A £100 million redevelopment of the waterfront on the Wirral including a mix of industrial, commercial and leisure facilities, has been postponed indefinitely. It is proving difficult to find tenants for new or existing developments.
I do not know what St. Quintin's was paid for producing the report. I think that it is money for old rope. I could probably have done a better job on the back of an envelope. The report then goes on to suggest that the derelict site and the destroyed site of the shipbuilding yard could be used to build a new retail park and extra houses. There is lack of credibility in the plan. It is nonsense.
The local community, in welcome co-operation not only with all Wirral Members of Parliament, but with local political leaders, with the shop stewards and with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, have got together since the announcement and have come up with a plan for which there is all-party support. The principle behind the plan is that shipbuilding must be preserved on Merseyside. I shall explain in a moment why I think that the plan is viable.
We want the yard to be returned to the local community for the £1 that VSEL paid for it when it took over in 1985. It has essentially given up trying to provide a secure future for the yard. There is all-party support on the Wirral and on Merseyside for the idea that the yard has a viable future. We want to be given the right to try to search out that future to safeguard our skills in our work force and to help the country to preserve valuable engineering skills which have served it so well in the past. We also want VSEL to provide an endowment fund to help us to get the development under way.
I should like the Minister's response on the next point. We want the Government to help us to get the yard back. The Government still have a golden share, with which they might be able to put some pressure on to VSEL. Even more importantly, the Government are effectively VSEL's sole customer. I should like a pledge from the Government, tonight if possible, that they will support us in our chosen route. We want to vest the ownership of the yard in a local community trust which would he accountable via the local authority, perhaps involving the Merseyside development corporation and other bodies, so that we could try to assure the yard's future.
I also want some idea from the Government of what would be the possibility of ending the yard's warship yard


status if, for example, it pledged not to go for defence contracts. As I shall explain, there are new market opportunities that VSEL has failed to exploit because of the warship yard status which has prevented it from having access to intervention funding and from bidding for other work.
The view in the international shipping market is that the prospects for recovery are excellent. The British Chamber of Shipping recently said that the average age of the British merchant fleet has now lengthened to 13 years. That exceeds the world average of 10 years. Clearly, there is a lot of potential refit work which will become available in the next few years. Three quarters of the world's tanker fleet is now more than 10 years old. The normal life span of those huge vessels is commonly thought to be about 20 years. Lairds missed out on building them originally when it went down the defence line and built Polaris. Perhaps the company should now have the opportunity to refit some of that work.
We have also seen a rise in the world merchant fleet capacity over the past four years of quite startling proportions. That capacity has risen by 10 million tonnes a year every year since 1988, according to Lloyd's Register of Shipping. It is thought likely that those trends will continue, and that foreign shipbuilders see a very buoyant market ahead of them for the next few years—so much so, that Japanese and South Korean yards are now building speculatively, seeing what they can sell on the market once they have built it. We believe that there are good growth possibilities.
If we consider what is happening on the Mersey, we see signs of a potentially useful and viable future for the yard. Merchant and refitting business is coming on stream in the world market to which the Cammell Laird yard could have access if its warship status was removed. In addition, a new freeport has been opened. The St. Quintin report had the gall to say:
Work has recently been completed to the new Freeport to the south of the docks which will increase the amount of shipping in Birkenhead.
The report states that it will certainly increase the amount of shipping on the Mersey. However, it does not attempt to analyse the possible beneficial effects of that for a company with three dry docks and the best refitting and repair facilities in the world. Instead, the report comes up with a mad, crackpot idea for retail development.
If there are more ships on the Mersey as a result of the success of the freeport, that provides Cammell Laird with another market opportunity that it would be in a good position to exploit. Moreover, there continue to be offshore opportunities through the oil and gas developments in Liverpool and Morecambe bay, and in connection with the Hamilton oil development at Point of Ayr. If there is a beneficial result from the public inquiry due early next year on that development, it is highly likely that Cammell Laird would be in an excellent position to bid for that work, which would help to secure its future.
We have world-class facilities; some of the best shipbuilding facilities in the world; the best history of quality and activity of any shipyard; and a world-class work force. Cammell Laird deserves a proper chance with an owner committed to its survival, not one that is playing market games.

Mr. Frank Field: While it gives me no pleasure to participate in the debate as we are debating what VSEL intends to do—to destroy Cammell Laird, if it get its way—it nevertheless gives me pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle). When I was elected in 1979, I became part of a team of Wirral Members who supported Cammell Laird and other local interests. We did that across parties. As a result of the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, there are now five Members of Parliament who have a key interest in the yard, as my hon. Friend's predecessor is a Minister in another place and takes a proper interest from there.
In the first part of my speech I want to comment on the background to the lobbying that Wirral Members have carried out successfully in the past for Cammell Laird. I do that not for the sake of drawing attention to us, but because it is now noticeable that VSEL has no friends in the House who will defend its actions. It is important that VSEL should take note of what Wirral Members have done for Cammell Laird and VSEL, and of how determined we are to ensure that the company does not get away with destroying what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey has described as a most important asset for Merseyside and a valuable asset for the country.
The starting point is the Department of Trade and Industry. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs as I know that his attitude is now different from that held by the DTI in the early days of the Thatcher Government. At that time hon. Members were faced with a real fear that the unspoken agenda of the Department of Trade and Industry was to close our yard and other yards on the basis that there were too many shipyards in the United Kingdom.
I pick up the story when we were attempting to secure vital frigate orders for the yard. I know that all the Wirral Members, as proper lobbyists, listened to what was said in the yard and in the House. We tried to find out how the contracts were fixed against us. It occurred to us late one night when a Labour Member came out of one of the House bars, got me against the wall, thumped me with a big, fat finger and said that our tender had won both frigates. The crucial information that that gave us was that we knew, from our trips into Cammell Laird, that we would have to submit two tenders for both boats. The Department of Trade and Industry had ensured that we would submit figures which could in no way compete with the figures from Swan Hunter.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will not mind my drawing attention to his position. I gave him that piece of information, and he relayed it to the then Secretary of State for Defence, now President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). One of the myths in our area is that the right hon. Gentleman is a friend of Merseyside and Cammell Laird because he gave us special treatment over the order for the frigates. He is indeed a friend of Merseyside, but not because he gave us special treatment that night. His friendship was in ensuring that the information that the yard supplied to him about our tender, as opposed to tenders, would be part of the discussion at the Cabinet table. As a result of that intervention, we gained a crucial order.
The next important part of our lobbying activities related to privatisation. If it had been left to Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., the yard would have been won by Trafalgar House. As Wirral Members, our job was to ask the then Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, Sir Peter Morrison, each day whether the Department had a view about the favoured candidate for privatisation. Would it be the in-house VSEL bid or Trafalgar House? Every day, Peter Morrison was asked that question. However, one Thursday evening at the 7 o'clock vote, he was not anxious to talk to Wirral Members, and we realised that a decision had been made. He told us that the decision had been made. It was against VSEL, and favoured Trafalgar House buying the yard.
The Wirral Members then worked to ensure that the decision was overturned when the Economic Sub-Committee of the Cabinet met the next morning. The decision was overturned. I believe that Mr. Tebbit and Mrs. Thatcher, as they then were, were the only two people who supported the original proposal from the DTI.
This is a crucial juncture of our story, because Wirral Members were fearful about their long-term future with VSEL. We believed that we had a short-term future with VSEL, whereas there would be no future whatever with Trafalgar House. Therefore, it was important for the VSEL consortium to win, although that posed a danger to us in the long term.
Since that day, the Wirral Members have sought a way of obtaining a peaceful and honourable divorce from VSEL. Late in the day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said, VSEL has offered that opportunity by announcing just before Christmas in rather grand style that 900 men and women were to be made redundant. Some will be made redundant before Christmas and some after. It is important to register that they are not just any men and women, although it would be important if they were: those men and women are the work force of Cammell Laird who at one stage had to fight their way through the rent-a-mob which was brought in to prevent them from reclaiming their yard.
We are therefore talking about people who are not only highly skilled but unbelievably brave, not merely in talking but in their actions in ensuring that the yard should survive. I hope that the Minister will therefore register that it is not in the Government's interest to stand idly by and let VSEL butcher the labour force in a way in which it was not butchered when the rent-a-mob was put outside the yard to destroy it.
When we are thinking about VSEL's role and the role that Wirral Members may have to play in the next six months if we do not get the separation that we require, it is also important to consider the record of Cammell Laird under VSEL's ownership. There are two parts to it. First, it must be registered that we were successful in bidding for an order for three conventional submarines. Secondly, it is also important to register that almost no yard other than Cammell Laird or VSEL could have undertaken the work. So we were not up against much competition. From that order, our attempts to win frigate orders have been thwarted by VSEL.
We know from the information that we have had from Cammell Laird that the bid that we have put together to win the orders from the Government would have to go up to Barrow. Barrow would put the VSEL levy on to our tender. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey called it the "deadly embrace". The effect of the embrace was that

we could not win those orders. I have been as puzzled as other Wirral Members about why VSEL adopted that approach and what its long-term strategy was for its own future.
I have made those comments because it is important to register the efforts and lengths to which Wirral Members have gone to secure the future of Cammell Laird. When VSEL comes to weigh up its future it should think carefully whether it wishes to make public enemies of the four Wirral Members and the former Minister who sits in the Lords, as well as the Members of Parliament from surrounding constituencies from the other end of the Wirral or the other side of the river.
It will not be a nice time for VSEL, particularly as it appears that it has reached the point of throwing in the towel in relation not only to Cammell Laird but possibly to its own future. It is possible that VSEL is waiting for some sugar daddy to come along in the form of a takeover bid to give it the diversification that it failed to acquire. If that is VSEL's strategy, it is important for it to have a quiet time while it conducts those negotiations. Wirral Members of Parliament, privately in our lobbying or publicly at every opportunity that we have in the House, will draw attention to the behaviour of VSEL. This is the third opportunity that we have been granted publicly to debate VSEL's conduct since the announcement 10 days ago, and it is merely a foretaste of what will occur after Christmas.
My other point is whether the decision is in the interest of VSEL. If it is in VSEL's interest, is it in the country's interest? If it is not in the country's interest, should not the Government say that that is the unacceptable face of VSEL and that they do not intend to allow it to continue with its proposed line of action? The Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that at several of our meetings with VSEL we have said that we believe that there has always been a conflict of interests between what it sees as its need for survival at Barrow and our needs for survival at Cammell Laird. Had there been a number of Barrow seats rather than one, and had we represented them, we would have taken a different position, but we do not represent Barrow or VSEL—we have another task. We do not accuse VSEL of behaving immorally: it has made a calculated decision about its best interests. Our duty is to question whether that is in the best interests of Cammell Laird and of the manufacturing base.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey has already said that we want to pose some questions for the Government. I know perfectly well that they will meet our demands in so far as they can. From 14 years of lobbying, I also know that issuing checklists is not always the most successful way to get the Government to move. As Wirral Members, we all know that, shortly after Christmas, our job will be to present a future for Cammell Laird that is attractive to the Government and will make them realise that our proposals for our single yard are interesting to them, as they begin a new phase of developing policies to abate the rising tide of unemployment and to protect the manufacturing base. The more successful we can be in setting Laird's interests in the national scene, the more successful we shall be in protecting its interests and its future.
I end on the note on which I have ended every debate on the subject since the atrocious announcement by VSEL a short time ago that it intended to butcher the brave men and women who work at Cammell Laird. We shall not let its decision pass without one God-almighty fight. Indeed,


if need be, by the end of our campaign we shall have so moved the debate that VSEL will decide that it is in its interests to have a quiet life from the four Wirral Members of Parliament, and our additional member in the Lords, and from surrounding Members in the Wirral, Cheshire and Liverpool, who have given us active support.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) on her choice of subject, because it is certainly vital to the people of the Wirral and to the Merseyside economy.
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been able to co-operate with Members across the party divide, but he has been lucky in the Wirral's choice of Tory Members of Parliament, because there is not a single out-and-out Thatcherite among them. Baroness Chalker and the Secretary of State for Wales do not come into that category, even though they were willing to be dragged along for a time. They have a chance to change people's attitude to the Tory Government, and although people on Merseyside will not necessarily vote for them, they may change the atmosphere nevertheless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned the friendliness to Merseyside shown by the President of the Board of Trade. Suspicions against the Tory Government on Merseyside are very old, because people recall that, in 1981, after visiting Toxteth, the President, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibility for Merseyside, prepared a report called "It Took a Riot". It was prepared after someone in Toxteth told him that it had taken a riot to get him there.
In Locket's restaurant, just along the way, the noble Lord Howe, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, worked against the right hon. Member for Henley and managed to get the Government to oppose any real efforts for Merseyside. Indeed, Lord Howe has been quoted as saying that to put money into Merseyside was to throw good money after bad. I hope that that is not the attitude of present Cabinet Members.
The closure of the Cammell Laird shipbuilding yard would amount to an economic and social catastrophe in an area—the Wirral—where one in eight people are now out of a job. The problem extends beyond the Wirral, because some of my constituents work or have worked in Cammell Laird, and all of us who were brought up on Merseyside remember from our earliest childhood looking across the River Mersey from Liverpool, and those cranes were part of the scene. I see that the Minister for Transport in London well remembers that. We do not want an end to that image, which testifies to the industrial skill and activity of the people of Merseyside.
The yard has modern facilities. I believe that it has the largest dry dock in Britain, which can contain the largest of vessels. Indeed, the largest passenger liner to be built in this country since the second world war, the Windsor Castle, was constructed at Cammell Laird.
The Government have made no real effort to ensure that there is a move towards defence diversification following the end of the cold war. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey that Cammell Laird's

present commitment as a defence contractor is preventing European Community fifth directive aid from being steered in the yard's direction. That dependence on warship development should end. My hon. Friend referred to the development of Morecambe bay and Liverpool bay for offshore gas or oil in the future. The yard has constructed offshore rigs and platforms, and those skills would be used in its future development.
The idea that this country should let shipbuilding continue to decline must be pushed aside. It is interesting to note that, at the beginning of this century, when Cammell Laird was at its height, 50 per cent. of the ships produced in the world were produced in Great Britain. By 1950, that figure had declined to 40 per cent., and by 1989, Britain was producing less than 1 per cent. of the world tonnage in shipping.
It might be argued that other countries, particularly Japan, coming on to the scene was inevitable. Despite the fact that their shipbuilding yards were totally devastated by the war, West Germany and Sweden made considerable gains as a result of Britain's continual impoverishment.
The Government have much to answer for. The British merchant fleet has declined by 75 per cent. since 1979. We had 1,614 vessels in 1975, but by 1988 that figure had dropped to 482 vessels, which resulted in the loss of many jobs. Many of my constituents have a knowledge of seafaring that goes back many decades. Between 1976 and 1990, the number of seafarers from this country declined from 58,000 to 18,000.
It was an outrage that, when the Atlantic Conveyor was lost during the Falkland war, that great patriot, the present Prime Minister's predecessor, did not turn to the shipbuilding yards of Britain such as Cammell Laird. She turned to the shipbuilding yards of South Korea, which has been able to make its way in the world because of its low wage costs. However, that is not the complete reason for Britain's decline; United Kingdom wage rates are currently 40 per cent. lower than those in Japan, but we still see a continual decline in shipbuilding.
In 1989, world shipbuilding orders increased by 26 per cent. In 1990, they increased by 12 per cent., but during that period, orders for vessels being produced in this country declined by 7.6 per cent. Britain now stands not No. 1 in the world of shipbuilding, but in 13th place—near the relegation zone.
There is a demand for vessels, and it will increase. Concern for environmental protection means that more and more countries will want ships that take into account problems such as pollution. The United States' desire to ban single-bottomed tankers, which are prone to leak, has created a demand for double-bottomed tankers. Britain should be taking its share of that market.
It is no use the Government saying, "We cannot interfere." The first time that I went to see a Minister—who happened to be the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—when Schweppes in the Walton constituency faced closure, his response was that the Government did not act against the commercial judgement of individual firms. I hope that the Government will intervene positively to assist Cammell Laird to change its status from that of a world warship yard to one that can provide for the civil market on a grand scale.
Cammell Laird is in a perfect location. It is situated on what is still one of the major rivers of the United Kingdom, and has good motorway links with the A41—a good road—the Mersey tunnel and the M53 motorway. If


the Government show a commitment to Cammell Laird and lift confidence on the Mersey, Merseyside could become the gateway of the European Community for Atlantic trade.
There is much work that can be done, and I hope that Government will consider the matter carefully. Merseyside survived the Luftwaffe, but it is having great difficulty surviving 14 years of Tory Governments who have no commitment to manufacturing industry.
The Government have destroyed this country's manufacturing base. Part of the export base of that manufacturing industry is shipbuilding. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to do something to save Cammell Laird, to save jobs, to lift the confidence of Merseyside and to save themselves from the considerable social costs of the unemployment that will follow if they do nothing.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The sacrifices referred to in the debate on engineering just now are only too apparent in Merseyside. During the 16 years that I have been in the area, major industries have disappeared off the face of the earth. It could be said that many of them were the old smokestack industries of days gone by, but more recently there have been redundancies in industries involving highly skilled workers serving the needs of a modern society.
Merseyside has suffered enormous losses in the service sector, too. Not so many years ago, the Bank of England had a major regional headquarters in the town, established there because of the shipping trade of days gone by. When I first went to Merseyside, it was commonplace to see the remnants of the old shipping trade—insurers, bankers and carriers meeting the manufacturers to arrange the transport of goods across the Atlantic. That is all past now, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, Merseyside can regain its pre-eminence in the shipping industry and become an important gateway to the Atlantic for Britain and its European partners.
In an earlier debate, I referred to the knock-on effects of redundancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) estimates that 5,000 or 6,000 jobs would be affected by these redundancies. I believe that to be a realistic estimate. These redundancies must be seen against the background of major redundancies throughout the Wirral already. The problems elsewhere in Merseyside notwithstanding, the Wirral has suffered extremely badly in recent years.
I do not believe that our major competitors would allow this to happen in their countries. Last year, I attended a meeting—my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was on the platform—at which workers, local authority representatives, residents and local politicians came together to hear VSEL give a commitment to the yard. Many of us thought the firm's commitment somewhat shallow at the time. There was a debate about the potential exploitation of intervention funds if the yard were to give up its exclusive building of warships. VSEL made all sorts of promises to look into such possibilities, but the audience found the company's statements shallow—they were greeted with some disbelief.
Now more time has passed, and the time for action to safeguard the yard has arrived. Who says these skills are not needed? My hon. Friends have mentioned the offshore industrial possibilities. There is all sorts of potential in research at the bottom of the ocean. There is potential also in energy renewables. It would be possible to convert and apply the engineering skills developed over the yard's 160-year history to projects that meet modern-day needs. They may not include warship construction—let us hope, in many respects, that they never do. Such projects could, however, provide suitable employment for skills that already exist.
In an earlier debate, reference was made to the report recently published by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Its contents should be studied in the context of Cammell Laird redundancies. We need a driving force, but not of the kind represented by the nonsense produced by St. Quintin. When I first heard that name, I thought that it was a gaol. Perhaps that is where the report's authors should be put.
The report is an extraordinary document:
The location of companies such as Cammell Laird, Candy, Vauxhall and Unilever has enhanced the strength of the peninsula, with Port Sunlight providing an historic importance.
One does not need too many qualifications to point that out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey pointed out, the report interestingly includes that the 160-acre site could be used for a retail park. It fails to mention that land of substantially higher acreage under the ownership of Unilever Merseyside Ltd. has been transformed into a retail park—just one and a half miles down the road.
Why did the report make no reference to the major study funded by Unilever and Wirral borough council just a few years ago, following the major redundancies at Van den Berg and Jurgen? Why was such factual information not sought? It is an extremely weak document, and I hope that the Minister will give it the treatment it deserves. There is only one place to file such a report.
If we can create the driving force to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead referred, and establish a partnership between the area's existing industrial talents, the Government, and the work force, and make proper utilisation of all the higher and further education skills, a future can be found that would be much more worth while than a debate about a £1 share. VSEL have had a fine return on capital invested, if one looks at it in those terms.
VSEL at Cammell Laird is not a lame duck. It has enormous latent talent, and it is the job of the House to exploit that talent not only in the interests of the workers of Cammell Laird and of Merseyside, or even of our country—but in the interests of the revitalisation of the River Mersey and of the trading potential of the whole European continent. I hope that the Minister will tonight give the north-west some confidence that the Government will be part of the campaign to which my hon. Friend referred, and an assurance that VSEL will not get away with it, and that the interests of the north-west will be properly served.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Those of my hon. Friends representing constituencies in the Wirral and on Merseyside spoke powerfully tonight about the predicament of the Cammell Laird shipyard. Those of us who represent shipbuilding areas, and still


more those of us who spent part of our working lives in or around the shipbuilding industry, will share my hon. Friend's sentiments.
The most powerful sentiment that we share is that we see the shipbuilding industry on Merseyside and everywhere else as a modern industry with a tremendous future. It has at least as good a future as the retail industry. The Opposition consider that shipbuilding has enormous potential: we are currently witnessing a revolution in shipbuilding techniques that is converting the industry into a high-technology, high-added-value concern. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, shipyards can be easily diversified into the energy industries, the creation of sub-sea structures, and oceanic development; they also provide facilities with important environmental uses.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) pointed out, important changes in the regulation of ships and shipbuilding throughout the world can create new markets. The elimination of inferior tankers and the upgrading of roll-on, roll-off ferries, for example, have made shipbuilding a modern industry and have turned the facilities at Cammell Laird into an important national asset which must not be lightly set aside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) spoke of the "deadly embrace" of VSEL, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) described the separation of Cammell Laird from VSEL as an honourable divorce.

Mr. Frank Field: I said that I hoped that it would secure an honourable divorce. That is not what is currently on offer.

Mr. Cousins: My hon. Friend is wise enough to ensure that an equally honourable settlement is included in his project for an honourable divorce.
VSEL is not on the ropes financially; it has powerful resources. At the last count, its cash reserves were said to amount to some £160 million. It has benefited from the high interest rates of recent years; its profits are substantial and rising, and currently amount to over £50 million. Our fear—it is a fear for Cammell Laird now, but I suspect that it will also be a fear for Barrow later—is that VSEL will diversify its activities out of shipbuilding, but will not use its enormous resources to enable its work force, and the communities who depend on that work force, to share in its possibilities. That is the Government's task, as my hon. Friends have correctly pointed out.
There has already been a huge reduction in our shipbuilding capacity. We have recently seen major job losses in offshore oil, as well as in shipbuilding itself. At least four shipyards have closed in the past two years; slightly before that, capacity switched away from shipbuilding to other industries. Surely the Government can legitimately use all those facts to renegotiate the original deal with the European Community: the recent rundown in the capacity of British shipbuilding is very relevant to Europe, and to European directives. The rundown of that capacity has been far greater than that in any other European country. It also exceeds the planned rundown in capacity of the east German shipyards, even

though those yards are to attract intervention fund support of more than 35 per cent. while Cammell Laird has no access to such support.
It is perverse to classify warship yards as they have been classified for European purposes. They must be given a proper opportunity to diversify away from warship building in precisely the same way as the east German shipyards must be given a proper opportunity to diversify away from the markets of the former Soviet Union and the eastern bloc on which they depended and which have now collapsed. The warship yards of Britain—and the yards of east Germany, so heavily dependent on orders from the eastern bloc—should be given a level playing field on which to operate.
In the fading days of their presidency of the European Community, the Government must explain why they have not pressed this matter with the European Community. They must also account for the amazing fact that the reconstruction of the yards cannot attract regional development grant support. They must now start to revise the original deal in connection with the losses of the shipbuilding industry—now a part of ancient history—and state aids, which gave rise to the exclusion of yards such as Cammell Laird from the intervention fund support that is now so critical to securing the future of the yard.
In a debate on European aid to shipbuilding which took place as recently as 18 November, the Minister for Industry said that he recognised the
reality of the circumstances under which the warship yards were privatised and the arrangments entered into with the Commission at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
it is possible that over time or even fairly soon there may be a change in circumstances and that the situation could be reconsidered."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B; 18 November 1992; c. 32.]
The crisis that Cammell Laird now faces is just the sort of circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman must have had in mind.
The Government must now reconsider their whole position on intervention funding and on access to regional development grants in the reconstruction of the yards. They should give the British warship yards a chance to diversify from their declining markets in exactly the same way as the German Government have rightly sought to give the east German shipyards a chance to diversify away from theirs.
Those are the powerful underlying issues behind the crisis at Cammell Laird. The present owner of Cammell Laird is not short of financial resources, having been given a very favourable deal by the Government of the time to start the yard off. All these are matters on which the Government ought to respond.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Let me participate in the proceedings for the third time this evening.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) on initiating this important debate. The sober way in which Opposition Members have spoken—reflecting the great sadness that we all feel at the predicament in which Cammell Laird now finds itself—has added to the power with which they have been able to advocate their case. I can assure them that I have been impressed by it.
I must apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who is chairing the


Telecommunications Council. I hope that, as a Cheshire Member and as the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible for the north-west, I shall prove to be an acceptable substitute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to have at least some support among my hon. Friends for that unarguable proposition.
Cammell Laird and its work force have made valiant attempts to cope with extremely difficult market conditions. As a Member of Parliament whose constituency is only a short distance away, I have been very struck by the calamity which the workers at Cammell Laird have suffered in recent times.
Cammell Laird merged with VSEL in June 1985, and, as a VSEL subsidiary, was subsequently privatised as a warship builder in March 1986. Of course, the political and economic world was very different six years ago, and the market for defence equipment has greatly reflected that change. It was considered then that many yards would have better prospects if privatised as warship builders. Although the circumstances which caused us to make those judgments at that time have changed, for reasons which I am sure everybody welcomes in general terms, nevertheless we do not welcome the secondary consequences which have produced the difficulty that Cammell Laird faces today.
World merchant shipbuilding capacity was also too high. That has had to be cut as well. It is instructive to look at the experience of other countries. After all, in Germany in the past 15 years, shipbuilding capacity has been cut by more than half, in Belgium by more than three quarters, in Spain by 60 per cent., in France by 79 per cent., and in many other countries in the Community by substantial amounts as well.
Britain is not alone in having experienced the traumas of change. In order to tackle the problem within Europe, the Commission, in its 1985 agreement with the United Kingdom Government, insisted that those shipyards which were privatised as warship yards could not gain access to intervention funding.
Of course, the unforeseen change to the European political scene resulted in the Ministry of Defence reviewing its requirements, and subsequently announcing "Options for Change". The defence sector then faced a situation similar to that which the merchant sector had faced previously. There was over-capacity in warship building, accompanied by a steeply declining order book. That meant that Cammell Laird's order book consisted virtually entirely of the construction of diesel submarines for the Ministry of Defence.
Cammell Laird's parent, VSEL, and defence companies, unable to diversify, could no longer maintain the levels of work force that they had previously employed. At the time of privatisation, and in a much more buoyant market, Cammell's work force was 2,100.
Therefore, VSEL, following the announcement of "Options for Change" announced, as early as October 1990, that Cammell Laird was for sale. At the same time, a necessary programme of redundancies was to be undertaken at Birkenhead and later Barrow. The United Kingdom Government, in an attempt to help VSEL in its efforts to sell Cammell, informed possible overseas buyers and United Kingdom industry of the availability of the yard through its British overseas posts, and day-to-day discussions with industry.
Part of the VSEL announcement in October 1990 stated that, if a purchaser could not be found for the Cammell

Laird shipyard, it would close in the summer of 1993 following delivery of the last of the diesel submarines. At that time, it was much hoped that the yard could be sold as a whole.
Due to the shipbuilding market and partly due to the recession, no party interested in the yard could be found. VSEL therefore decided that it might be a better option to sell Cammell Laird in small plots under a zonal selling strategy.
Although there were one or two approaches, still no serious bids were received for any of the plots. At the same time, the Department continued to approach the Commission in order to see whether it would change its mind on the availability of intervention fund for warship builders. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—he is present at this somewhat inconvenient hour of the morning, which reflects our commitment to the workers at Cammell Laird and to Merseyside in general—along with my noble Friend Lady Chalker, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in his usual fair way, acknowledged, gave great support to hon. Members' attempts to resolve what appeared to be an intractable problem.
In 1990, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) sought to persuade the Commission that warship builders should have access to the intervention fund. The Commission would not agree to that, but did agree that United Kingdom merchant yards should be allowed to return to unsubsidised merchant shipbuilding. In the following year, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who is also in Brussels today and therefore cannot be with us, made a further unsuccessful attempt to persuade Sir Leon Brittan that warship builders should be allowed subsidy.
As recently as November this year, my officials sounded out Sir Leon Brittan's cabinet on the prospects of resuming subsidy. His officials were clear that there was no prospect that the Commission might agree to this. Officials remain in close touch with the Commission, so that if there is a change in attitude, we can ensure that any ministerial approach will produce the most favourable response.
I must tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that, however laudable his aim of securing a change of status for the yard, that does not lie within our gift, unilaterally, to achieve. He is well aware that the regime under which shipbuilding is managed in the Community, particularly in respect of the subsidies available, is the preserve of the Commission. Although we attempt to influence its decisions and press strongly the case for our shipbuilding industry, it is not something about which we alone can take a decision.

Mr. Cousins: During the British presidency the relevant Ministers have held the chair at such meetings. Did our Ministers ever raise the matter of Cammell Laird with our colleagues in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give that information off the top of my head, because I was not present at those meetings, but I shall, of course, inquire about it. The member state that holds the presidency must, however, act in the interests of the Community as a whole. That often produces some difficulties for those who have to bear that responsibility. Other Ministers or officials represent the United Kingdom, and I am sure that they put forward


vigorously those points that benefit our industry. I should be very surprised if we did not take full advantage of any opportunity to discuss the issue.
We are conscious that the EC decision is particularly hard to accept when, as several Opposition Members have said, the former East German yards have been given non-contract-related aid of up to 36 per cent. However, social and economic conditions there were so serious as to lead EC Ministers, in an Industry Council on 17 June 1992, as a whole to accept a special arrangement for those yards.
I emphasise that the maximum figure of 36 per cent. cannot be directly compared with the 9 per cent. at present available to shipbuilding in the rest of the Community for aid to specific contracts. Where there is no competition from outside the Community, east German prices must not fall below the level quoted by other Community shipbuilders. The original provisions of the directive already ensure that such action can be taken where there is competition from outside the Community. The Commission has also been instructed to ensure that those companies which have bought east German yards do not increase their capacity during modernisation.
Despite the unavailability of intervention fund subsidies, there was still some hope for Cammell Laird with the proposed development of an oil and gas terminal at Point of Ayr by the Hamilton brothers—no relation—who had applied for planning permission. However, Wirral borough council objected to that application, which is now awaiting a decision following a public inquiry. That was a significant factor in triggering VSEL's announcement on 2 December, reconfirming its 1990 announcement to close the yard.
The announcement was therefore not unexpected, but it still represents very sad news, and it was received with much regret both on Merseyside and elsewhere. Both management and work force have sought to secure a future for Cammell Laird, but it has not proved possible in the circumstances.
While this is a decision essentially for VSEL, the Government have repeatedly sought to help the extremely difficult market conditions. However, as a development area, Birkenhead already qualifies for the full range of DTI support measures. Cammel Laird, the local TEC and the Wirral task force have established a joint fund to assist retraining of redundant Cammell Laird employees—more than 800 have benefited so far. Some £37.5 million has been made available over five years under Wirral's city challenge programme. The newly designated freeport and associated maritime development zone form the cornerstone of the local regeneration initiative.

Ms Eagle: I asked whether the Government would be willing to support the local community's proposal to maintain Lairds as a shipbuilding area. The Minister is talking, quite properly, about what would happen if the catastrophe came about and the yard closed. I should be interested in his comments on the local community initiative that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I mentioned, so that we can offer workers some hope that they may have a future if we can get the yard out of VSEL's grip.

Mr. Hamilton: I well understand the hon. Lady's desire that shipbuilding should continue at a site where it has been carried on for many generations. If she and the local community can put together a viable scheme that convinces investors that shipbuilding can continue, no doubt it can be put forward. I am sure that she appreciates that, as it is not my direct responsibility, I cannot give a personal opinion, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry gives the closest consideration to her proposal.
It is very sad that circumstances have conspired in such a way that it is not possible to undertake profitable shipbuilding at Cammell Laird. It is particularly sad because no one has striven harder than the yard's management and work force to make the yard a long-term success. Submarines are still being built at Cammell Laird, but when the contracts are completed, the yard will, on present plans, be put on a care-and-maintenance basis in readiness for better times, which we hope will come. The over-capacity in world markets does not make it easier to put together the viable plans to which the hon. Lady has referred.

Mr. Wareing: Does not the Minister understand that it is not a matter of waiting for somebody else to come along with a viable plan? Surely the Government should now declare their firm commitment to help by actively intervening to achieve such a plan. After all, they must bear in mind their responsibilities for the balance of payments, and the loss of the Cammell Laird yard will make us more dependent on shipbuilding in other parts of the world. There is also the dire social cost of allowing people to lose their jobs.

Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will know that we are not masters in our own house. We have to justify our decisions about subsidies and intervention to the European Commission and have to fit our schemes with those set out in Brussels. Otherwise, the level playing field for which Opposition Members have so eloquently called will be perceived differently by other member states of the Community. These matters must be discussed and agreed. It is not possible for us to take the kind of unilateral action that the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister talks about us not being masters in our own house, and there could not be a truer statement about the plight of Laird's at the moment. Earlier, he said that Laird's had been unsuccessful in bidding for orders to keep the yard going. The crucial clause that he omitted from that sentence was "under the current ownership". One of the points that we have made this evening is that VSEL clearly does not believe that it is in its interests for Laird's to succeed. When we tried to win orders for frigates, VSEL marked up tenders in a way that made it impossible for us to win.
It is important to register that fact—but as the Minister said earlier that attempts had been made to sell some of the land, it is also important to register the fact that in the weeks leading up to the announcement that the yard was to be butchered, the Merseyside development corporation attempted to buy from the shipyard vacant land which nobody thinks will be used for shipbuilding, yet it was impossible for a sale to be agreed. Several people have reported similar reactions from VSEL, which seems to suggest that the company has a long-term strategy for the


yard vis-a-vis its value for VSEL's books, but not a long-term strategy for building ships and keeping the workers employed.

Mr. Hamilton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and again, I shall draw it to the attention to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. It is not possible for me to comment on it now because I am not in possession of the facts.
In spite of the sad story that I have catalogued, I am especially pleased to be able to announce that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) has just approved a £2·45 million city grant towards a £7·2 million scheme of industrial development in the challenge area at Valley road in Birkenhead. The project involves the reclamation of 11 acres of derelict land and the building of 173,000 sq ft of industrial and warehouse units, which will provide space for 400 new jobs.
I know that, in the midst of recession, from which we hope we are emerging—there are now signs which give us grounds for optimism—this may all seem like rather cold comfort. I appreciate that, in the context of the difficulties that we have experienced in recent months and years, what is happening will be hard to take, but we have to look to the future.
The Government are firmly committed to the regeneration of Merseyside. It is a massive task, and it will not be achieved overnight. Industrial change is always painful, and when Labour Governments were in power they had to face similar traumatic changes. We are committed to cope with those changes and to ensure that as far as possible the pains of transition are diminished, if not eliminated.
Although I do not know what future is in store for Cammell Laird, for its employees and for the site that it occupies, I can say that the Government take seriously everything that has been said in the debate, and that we shall do our level best to ensure that the Wirral constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House are given the best future that it is within our power to give them.

London Transport

Mr. John Marshall: There is a tradition in the House that if one has an interest in a topic one ought to declare it, so it is only appropriate for me to declare that I have an interest in the improvement of London transport because I am a frequent user of it. I am a frequent user of the Northern line, which is all too often described as the "misery line". A former chairman of London Transport, Sir Keith Bright, once described it as an abomination, and I do not believe that the quality of the service has improved sufficiently for that description to cease to apply.
My fundamental belief is that the only answer to London's traffic problems is to increase investment in public transport. It is clear that there can be little additional road building in London, because Londoners' resistance to such developments is great, the costs are huge, and the benefits are slight in terms of relieving traffic congestion. One of the lessons of building urban motorways has been that all too often the better road immediately generates increased traffic, and at the end of the day there is no less congestion. Road building in cities is a wonderful example of Say's law, with supply creating its own demand.
The only road that offers much hope for improving traffic flows in London is the M25, London's ring road. The widening of the M25 and perhaps eventually the building of a "son of M25" offers some hope for Londoners. What we must also recognise is that, while there will be little additional road building, car ownership in London is likely to increase by a further 50 per cent. over the next 20 years. It is up to the Government and to others to decide what can be done to stop London grinding to a complete halt.
As I see it, the solution is a massive increase in investment in public transport. It is true that my hon. Friend the Minister has approved a number of red routes, but they merely delay Armageddon. They may speed up the flow of traffic into central London, but they can do nothing to provide parking spaces in central London. There are others who see road pricing as a panacea for the problems of traffic in London. We have still to discover whether it is technically feasible, and at the very best it is only a medium-term solution. I believe that, ideally, any road pricing should be introduced after public transport has been improved, rather than before.
It is common ground in the House that London Transport was starved of investment in the early 1980s. The Greater London council, the demise of which is unregretted in London, made a deliberate decision to subsidise fares rather than to improve services. The Livingstone years were the locust years for London Transport. Investment in rolling stock was at £60·6 million in 1980–81. By 1984–85, it had fallen to £17·7 million.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was responsible for a massive decline in investment in rolling stock by London Transport. That inadequate investment was used so that there could be cheaper fares on London Transport for American tourists. The GLC should have produced a better service for Londoners rather than cheaper fares for visitors to the capital. The task facing London Transport and my hon. Friend the


Minister today is to make good the neglect of the past, to invest in new routes and to provide the services that will be necessary once the recession is over.
I will talk for a minute about the Northern line, the London Transport service that I endure all too often. On the Northern line, we have an information service which was once described as being at the frontiers of technology, but it is far behind those frontiers today and is frequently regarded as unsatisfactory by those who use it. The trains of the Northern line are frequently graffiti-ridden, uninviting and not as clean as one would like. It is true that London Transport has sought to improve the quality of the stations. I pay tribute to those who work on London Transport for the amount of refuse that they collect at the stations, but it is a poor reflection on those who use the stations that London Transport has to remove so much rubbish day in and day out.
The new Angel station on the Northern line is substantially better than the previous station. Building new stations and improving other stations is essential if we are to get the increased traffic that is expected. However, although we can see some clean stations and some new stations, many of the other stations on the Northern line and elsewhere suffer from inadequate investment. Only one escalator out of three at London Bridge station was working today. We frequently find that lifts are not working. The saga of Highgate station is well known in other parts of London. Many of our stations need a radical overhaul; the clocks do not work and there are far too few automatic ticket gates. There is also a need for massive modernisation.
The autumn statement affects London Transport in two respects. The first is that conditional approval was given for investment in the Jubilee line. That was warmly welcomed by all who are concerned about the future of London. The Jubilee line extension will benefit docklands and certain parts of south London that currently lack adequate public transport. However, many of us are concerned about the reluctance of the banks to cough up. Today's—or was it yesterday's—edition of the Evening Standard suggests that the banks were somewhat reluctant to cough up their share of the Jubilee line money. What happens if the banks do not cough up? Will the extension then be doomed? What will happen to the £1.4 billion that the Government were committed to spending on the Jubilee line extension?
If the Jubilee line extension is cancelled because the banks refuse to pay their part of the bill, I hope that the rest of the money will be spent elsewhere in London. The need is there. People who travel on the London underground know that it must be improved. However, much more importantly, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary for Transport, by agreeing to the extension to the Jubilee line, have told the House and the country that the £1.4 billion in available for investment in the line.
If, for reasons created by the banks, that money is not going to be spent on the Jubilee line, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London should use that good local government term "virement" and say that the money that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

said would allocated to transport in London should benefit from virement from the Jubilee line to other services in London Underground.
The second feature of the autumn statement which affects London Transport is the reduction from £752 million to £530 million in the external financing limit of London Transport's core business for 1993–94. There were other reductions for 1994–95 and 1995–96. I remind the House that that compares with a recommendation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that we should spend £750 million on London Underground. I realise that the 1993–94 figures are set in concrete, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to consider the figures further out. Just as they were willing to change the figures agreed in 1991, I hope that they will be willing to change the medium-term figures agreed in 1992.
I would also like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider his budget for transport in London and see whether he can seek virement from road building to public transport. The return to Londoners will be much better if he does that. We must also consider new ways of financing investment in public transport in London. Today's Financial Times reported that the Government, the Confederation of British Industry and London Transport should be looking at new ways of financing the necessary investment to improve our transport facilities.
I hope that we can consider the role of the private sector as several stations, including Hammersmith and Mansion House, have been improved by property developers. Today, I recognise that not many property developers are trying to improve anything; they arc merely trying to survive. At some stage in the next two to three years, however, the developers will come back to town. I hope that London Transport will be encouraged to use the skill, the know-how and the cash of private developers to improve stations, because improving stations is essential if we are to get better services within London.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the possibility of private sector leasing. We have allowed British Rail to lease rolling stock for some of the south-east train lines. If British Rail is allowed to lease rolling stock, there is no logical reason why London Transport should not be allowed to do the same.
I should also like my hon. Friend and the Confederation of British Industry to examine the possibility of industry making a greater contribution to London Transport. It is essential for the prosperity of shops, offices and the tourist industry in London, to have a decent underground network. We should consider whether those important sources of employment in London can provide extra money to revive London Transport.
As the theme of my speech. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the editorial in the Financial Times which summarises the argument in one sentence:
If London is to maintain its international competitive position, the government needs to think urgently about how it is going to cope with the strains on its infrastructure.
My hon. Friend is capable of that thought, and I believe that he will put forward many positive proposals in the next few months.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) chose this subject for his ballot.
I wonder whether the House would first bear with me for a moment. I would like to preface my comments by sharing with the House a considerable sadness to my Liberal Democrat colleagues. About 6 o'clock last evening, the senior parliamentary researcher for the Liberal Democrats here in the House of Commons died. He was aged about 30 and had for the last couple of weeks fought pneumonia and cancer. He had worked in the House for several years, and led the team to research people who back us up here. His name was Ewan Cameron. He was an extremely bright and able and greatly respected young man. He worked for me and other colleagues before he came to his most recent job. The parliamentary staff and my colleagues are devastated. Often, we go without saying how grateful we are to the people who, do the work, unseen and unsung, to keep us well informed, well briefed and well equipped with arguments from both sides of the House. It would be unfair and unreasonable of me tonight, and I would not have wished, to begin without paying the greatest tribute to Ewan, whom we will all miss greatly. We send our love and wishes to his parents and family.
Londoners probably spend as much time talking about London Transport as about the weather. That does not apply only to those who use the buses, trains and tubes. The subject of London Transport is raised fairly regularly in the House, and it is a dominant issue during transport questions. It has a far greater proportion of political interest than the 15 per cent. of us who live in London might justify, or even the greater percentage of those who work here and visit here.
We are grateful that a Minister has responsibility for London Transport. I pay tribute, as others have done and I expect will do, to the Minister for Transport in London for his interest and knowledge. Inevitably, once he saw that the subject had been selected, he would expect several questions about what is going on. I want to ask several questions. The opportunity is timely, given that it is only a matter of weeks since the autumn statement, which obviously had a severe impact on London Transport funding, the subject of tonight's debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you noticed the comments of London Transport in response to the Chancellor's statement on the funding of transport in the years ahead. The chairman of London Transport was not pleased with the result. That is not surprising. There was effectively a 30 per cent. cut in funding, according to London Transport, as a result of the autumn statement. That came as a disappointment to London Transport and London Members of Parliament after last year's statement and commitments of considerable extra investment.
I shall quote what the Secretary of State for Transport said last year, and the response of the chairman of London Transport this November. Last year the Secretary of State said:
By 1993–94, London Underground investment in the existing railway should be over £700 million a year. This takes full account of the conclusions of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission earlier this year, which noted the need"—
this is important—
for an average expenditure of £700 to £750 million a year in order to provide an acceptably modern network.
The response to this year's figures by Mr. Wilfred Newton was:
We now face the real prospect of deteriorating services, and the loss of some 7,000 jobs in supply industries …

Twelve months later we are facing savage cuts: 30 per cent. next year, 31 per cent. the year after and 26 per cent. in 1995–96. This returns us to the weary stop-go cycle we had every reason to believe was behind us. Higher fares next year and lower wage increases are dwarfed by the severity of today's swingeing cuts.
Of course, we could go back into history and have an interesting and relevant debate about the level of investment during the time when the Greater London council was in charge of London Transport. We rehearsed much of that debate when we discussed the Bill which set up London Transport. I served on the Standing Committee which considered that Bill, and the Bill which abolished the GLC. I might add that I did not support either Bill. However, such a historical debate would not be particularly helpful now.
The key issue is the future and future levels of investment. It is clear that, unless something changes, expenditure on London Transport will be in difficulty as a result of the Government's commitment to cutting public expenditure. We shall lose a great deal in the years ahead—not this year but in the years from next April on. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues do not rejoice in that. They have had to take their share, like everyone else, of the brunt of a decision made by the Government about cutting public expenditure.
However, we must ask some appropriate questions. First, what will be done about the reduced investment? What chance is there of those cuts being reversed? What chance is there of a return to the increased levels of investment which the Government accepted should be made? What chance is there of the public investment which many Members of Parliament—not only Opposition Members—have argued is necessary if the London transport system is to be equipped to deal with the demands of the decade, let alone the decades ahead?
Mr. Wilfred Newton went on to say:
cuts in investment will mean worsening service quality in order to maintain safety. Last month, the Underground met every Government service quality objective, five months ahead of schedule. That progress has been torpedoed today.
He also said that many of the basic infrastructure projects would be at risk. He dealt with specific matters of anxiety, such as plans to relieve congestion of overcrowded stations, and provide public information—all measures for which the public are asking and would find useful. He ended by saying that probable—I accept that it is probably—London Transport would not be able to proceed with the new escalators between Bank and Monument, and would certainly have to recommend the closure of Aldwych station. That is not an encouraging prospect.
Against that background, what will happen to the level of investment and to the need for security of investment year on year? Transport planners, like any other team of experts or engineers, need to know what money will be available this year and the year after, because transport planning is a medium to long-term exercise. When one develops new underground lines or improves busy stations, one cannot suddenly bring people on site or take them away. The key question is, what will happen next April and what can we do about it?
I also have a short and fairly straightforward list of more immediate questions. I suppose that the Minister would not expect me to do otherwise than to begin the list with a question about the proposed extension to the Jubilee line. The hon. Member for Hendon, South mentioned it, and quoted from Monday's Evening


Standard, which suggested that there was not going to be a green light for the line this side of Christmas. I do not know what sort of light the line has so far had—perhaps it has been one of those Christmas tree lights, which has been flashing on and off. But where, oh where is the green light for the Jubilee line? I hope that it will come soon. I have made no secret about it—I have not spent hours in the House and elsewhere lobbying for the Jubilee line to give up now. I know that the Minister and the Government are equally committed, but commitment and conclusion are as yet apart.
I hear mixed noises. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us and give us some encouragement that the Jubilee line will go ahead, and that everything is being done to bring together and work on those people who have an interest in it, to get a decision as soon as possible. The project team and the engineers are in the wings, waiting to go, much of the preparatory work has been done with Parliament square and Bridge street having been dug up as part of that work. I am not complaining about that, but we are now waiting for the real thing. The sooner the holes are dug, the sooner it will all be over.
I declare an interest, as my constituency will have the largest part of the Jubilee line extension. My constituents look forward to the end product, but they will have to put up with a lot of disruption, spoil removal and noise in the meantime. Their plea, and mine, is "let us get on with it." I should be grateful to find out whether that is going to happen. If there is no specific news yet, what do we have to do to bring it about, where do we have to go, whom do we have to see, and which bankers' doors do we have to bang on to get a decision? Please, could we have a decision for Christmas? It would be a jolly good Christmas present, and I promise that I would close my eyes and go to bed early if there was a prospect of Father Christmas delivering that commitment at the end of the week.
Secondly, can we do anything to ensure that we do not lose the Thames riverbus? The Minister was good enough to come to my constituency to relaunch the service, from Greenland pier in the Surrey docks, earlier this year. The riverbus had a difficult beginning, but since its management changed hands it has done better and carried more people. The private sector has subsidised it to keep it going hut, judging by the reports, it seems shaky, and a potential competitor seems to have received ministerial endorsement.
I have a simple view of the riverbus. The Thames is the least congested, most central and most pleasant transport route in London, linking many of the most important transport interchanges. If we could have a riverbus that intersected London Transport's infrastructure rail and tube networks, if it could appear on the tube map and if we could have an integrated ticket system we would be well away. I should be grateful to hear about the Government's commitment to ensuring that the riverbus remains afloat in some form—and for a sign that they will try to ensure that the service does not sink but is increasingly available to and used by Londoners.
Next, what is the effect of the cuts announced in the underground service on the modernisation and works needed at many crucial stations? Obviously, I have an interest, with four stations in my constituency: London Bridge, which is very busy; the Elephant and Castle,

Northern and Bakerloo lines, which are very busy; and the two stations on the East London line—Surrey Quays, or "Surrey Docks" as local people still prefer to call it, and Rotherhithe.
The other day I was with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the leader of Southwark council, the chief executive, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all at the Elephant and Castle, unveiling the next stage of the murals in the underpass, which are part of a programme supported by Government funding to make the Elephant and Castle safer, more commercially viable and more encouraging and welcoming to users.
However, the Northern Line station entrance is still grim and has put off some investors. Additional work on it was started some years ago but remains unfinished. Bare concrete spalling on the outside makes one think that one could be entering anything from a construction site to a urinal. It is important, because it serves an area in which a lot of effort has been made on a partnership basis between the local authority, the Government, the private sector and residents to try to bring the Elephant back to life. The owners painted the shopping centre pink to try to make people feel that things were brightening up. People may not like it, but at least they notice it. It has brought business and other investors back to the Elephant.
My final question is about buses, particularly the concessionary fares scheme. There has been a round of negotiations, as there is bound to be under the present system, to consider whether the concessionary fares scheme is to be continued in future. That requires all the local authorities to decide their position. Under legislation, there is a fallback position, which is less good if local authorities do not agree.
My constituents over state retirement age ask me most often, "Will we still have our concessionary fares scheme?" It matters enormously to them. I appreciate that many colleagues from other parts of the country may be jealous of London Members because they do not have a similarly generous scheme. It is worth keeping in London, however, irrespective of whether such schemes are less generously funded in other parts of the country, because in areas with less car ownership, it provides mobility and access, and makes London theirs. Thanks to this scheme, many of our citizens who might otherwise be imprisoned by physical or financial circumstances are enabled to travel round the city.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the politically motivated attempt year after year to frighten pensioners in London that the scheme is about to go? At every annual round since at least 1986, it has been suggested that my constituents and many others are about to lose that scheme. It has caused much unnecessary worry and suffering to elderly people.

Mr. Hughes: I condemn all rumours and scaremongering, but I attend the meetings of the Greater London forum for the elderly that are held in the House and those of other cross-London pensioners' organisations, and I know that they are not scaremongering when they express their concern. They regularly ask me and other colleagues across the party divide to campaign to ensure that this scheme is guaranteed. The way that the system operates —which does not guarantee it indefinitely, but only from year to year—inevitably generates concern.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say how far the negotiations have got. I have made inquiries, and understand that many boroughs have agreed to endorse the scheme fully. I believe that there may, however, be at least one borough—Kingston that has not. If that is so, I am sad, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some accurate information on the state of play. What can be done to ensure that scheme, in its present form, is fully guaranteed for the future?
Those four specific issues—the Jubilee line, the riverbus, tube station improvements and the concessionary fares scheme—are foremost in my mind tonight in relation to London transport, and in the minds of my constituents. If I can be reassured on those four topics, I shall go off on my Christmas holiday a happier man.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Opposition are grateful that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) succeeded in the ballot and has raised the subject of the funding of London transport. It gives us the opportunity to set out once again our case and our criticism of the Government for their chronic under-funding of London's transport and the consequent hardship and higher costs that it brings for London commuters. The policies now pursued by the Government will create a bow wave of problems that will probably accumulate for future generations.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South painted a canvas of some criticism of the Government's stewardship of London's transport, but his fellow commuters on the Northern line and his constituents in Hendon, South will note that he failed to press charges against the Government. Indeed, I do not think that he even cautioned the Government, who have failed not just the hon. Gentleman's constituents but everyone in the 32 London boroughs and the thousands of other commuters who daily travel into the metropolis from the surrounding counties. I think that that is because the hon. Gentleman must partly share the Government's guilt in that he has sought to support and sustain Government economic policies which clearly aggravate the existing crisis in the funding of London's transport.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to the autumn statement, its consequences and the betrayal of promises to London transport. Therefore, he must share much of the criticism that Northern line commuters will level at the Government. I think that he is a supporter of the plans to privatise the railways, which will obviously affect commuters coming into work in greater London.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the reasons why I and others favour privatisation is that, wherever privatisation has taken place, it has led to a massive increase in investment—and that is surely what is needed on the railways.

Mr. Mackinlay: All the evidence before the Select Committee on Transport has shown not only that privatisation will not bring investment, but that there is now a hiatus among some important industries connected with the railways, particularly those which build rolling stock. They have empty order books and are worried about the future. Even if orders for rolling stock were placed today, it would probably be too late to support and sustain some of these private industries.
There is currently a haemorrhage in rail freight due to the hiatus and uncertainty created by Government policies. It will not be possible to put the genie back into the bottle. Everyday that more freight is lost to British Rail means the loss of more income for British Rail and additional congestion and pollution on our roads. This is the result of the Government even having contemplated privatisation; the impact of implementing their policies in full can only be guessed at.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South took a ritualistic swipe at the Greater London Council. The problems of trying to keep the metropolis moving at minimum cost are manifestly aggravated by the lack of a strategic planning authority for greater London. The Wandsworth Borough News recently stated that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) wants the Minister for Transport in London to co-ordinate bridge closures so that they caused the least possible disruption. Three Thames bridges were closed simultaneously, with enormous attendant problems for those crossing from south London to the north bank.
The hon. Member said that the problem was caused by a lack of co-ordination between Wandsworth and the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and went on:
Of course bridges have to be repaired, but surely it makes sense for someone to co-ordinate this and make sure that only one bridge is affected at a time.
Since the abolition of the GLC there has been no such co-ordinating body. The case of the bridges amply shows that mobility planning in London is in a state of near-anarchy.
London Transport, British Rail and the other agencies which provide mobility around our capital city are in crisis. That crisis is indicative of a much wider problem. It is not so much a case of a capital region in decline as of a proud and ancient London falling into decay. That decay is exemplified by what is happening to investment in public transport. It is a matter of fact that the Government continue to cut investment in real terms in London Transport, and in the underground especially. In the autumn statement, the Government chose to renege on their promise to accept the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—that the underground should get £700 million a year. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South said, that was cut to £513 million a year a major reduction, resulting from the Government's mishandling of the economy.
The answer lies in a change of economic strategy. There is an immediate need for some Government initiatives, until such time as a strategic authority for London is set up—democratically elected and installed, I hope, by a Labour Government—to maximise the use of public transport, to minimise the costs to customers and to ensure that, where there has to be road traffic, there is also action to minimise increases in pollution, noise and congestion.
The hon. Members for Hendon, South and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the River Thames. It is a tragedy that that great potential asset is so under-used. I hope that future policies initiated by a strategic authority or by a Labour Government—albeit some time away—will endeavour to exploit the River Thames commercially, as a way of taking not hundreds but thousands of people to their place of work, as well as making sure that it has an important part to play in the recreation of Londoners and those who live in surrounding counties.
The question of a strategic authority cannot be divorced from land use planning. Transport planning and funding cannot be divorced from land use planning, which also supports the argument for a central strategic authority—which the Government have failed to provide. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the response of London Transport's chairman when he realised the impact that the autumn statement would have on his service.
Although I was not present, I guess that London Transport's chairman threw up his hands when he said, "The result of the autumn statement returns us to the weary stop-go cycle we had reason to believe was behind us." One can legitimately claim that there will continue to be problems in the years immediately ahead, and a bow-wave of problems for Londoners in the next decade and in the decades beyond as a result of the underfunding announced in the autumn statement.
Investment in London Underground will effectively be cut by 30 per cent. in 1993–94, 31 per cent. in 1994–95, and 26 per cent. in 1995–96. The Government would have liked to brag today that the Jubilee line extension had been given the go-ahead, but we know from last night's Evening Standard that they find themselves in an embarrassing situation because that cannot be done.
It never ceases to surprise me that people who advocate and defend market forces, and who always project the idea of private investment as the panacea for all our problems, are taken aback when things go wrong. Conservative Members have amazing cheek when they criticise everyone but themselves. In the case of the hiatus in the Jubilee line's funding and planning, there have been complaints and criticisms about the banks. The banks have a duty to their shareholders to maximise their profits and minimise their losses and to ensure that all risks are kept to the minimum. The hiatus in the funding of the Jubilee line shows that the banks have legitimate grounds for caution.
That is a statement of fact. We require from Government real intervention, to ensure that the Jubilee extension is built with the Minimum of delay. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon, South but thought that he was rather defeatist, in that he invited the Minister to stand up and say, "The Jubilee line extension is off, and we shall spend the Government money set aside for that on other forms of transport for London." That is not good enough, and it would be a great betrayal of the people and businesses that are dependent on that line being constructed, and of those who anticipated that jobs would be created thereby assisting in the regeneration of a London now in deep recession. The Minister at least owes the House a reassurance tonight that it is still planned to build the Jubilee line extension, and that there are no great problems, despite the reports in the Evening Standard.
I am also concerned about the impact of cuts in funding for London's transport services—and for the underground in particular—on employment in London. Cuts in funding for the existing network—quite apart from the Jubilee line extension—will unquestionably increase unemployment, whereas we and others were hoping, of course, for an injection of funds to stimulate demand for jobs and services in the capital.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the pending privatisation of London Buses. In 1991–92 London Buses spent £24 million on new vehicles, and a similar programme is required each year to tackle the problem of its aging fleet. It is highly unlikely that, if privatisation goes ahead, any comparable investment will be made by the private sector. Privatisation will mean buses which do not turn up, buses which are unsafe, buses which have missed servicing, buses which will add to the pollution problem and, of course, higher fares. I fear that London residents do not fully appreciate what the impact of privatisation will be; it has, of course, already been experienced by people living outside London.
Like the Minister for Transport in London, I represent an Essex constituency. I am both frustrated and concerned at receiving letters from constituents—after a general election which my party regrettably lost—asking why their bus service have been curtailed. I am forced to explain to them that, when a bus services is privatised, its operators have a legitimate duty to the shareholders and themselves to maximise profits and minimise costs: they are not in the business of running services at a loss. I expect my constituents' experience to be replicated on many services across the London region if privatisation goes ahead.
We are told that, along with the proposals to privatise the bus fleet, we must endure the franchising of British Rail services. That is an important subject, which requires another occasion for the probing of the Government and the exposure of the folly of their policy. It should be said, however, that that policy has already halted investment in both rolling stock and the refurbishment of much of Network SouthEast. That, too, will present a bow wave of problems for future years.
Across London there is some political agreement, both between the Association of London Authorities—which largely represents Labour councils—and the London Boroughs Association, which represents Conservative councils. They have agreed priorities for investment in London's public transport, arguing that anything less than the £700 million promised by the Government for improvements to the London underground will prove catastrophic for both commuters and the network.
The extension of the Jubilee line requires £1.7 billion. The associations insist that the extension must be built, both to fulfil the moral commitment made to the people of London and to provide all the employment and commercial consequences to which I have referred. They want progress on the Hackney-Chelsea line, on crossrail, on the south London orbital rail link and on the British Rail east London line. They look forward to invest in light rail systems, to the completion of the planned extension of the docklands light railway, and to improvements in the interchange between rail and underground. They want 450 new buses, including low-floor single-deck buses to enable people with disabilities to use public transport. That programme, in addition to planned maintenance and safety work, is required and expected by Conservative and Labour politicians on behalf of their electorate, but the Government seem unable or unwilling to deliver it.
I make one further reference to rail privatisation. It is proposed that the track authority will charge out the full costs of the use of track and related facilities. Will that mean that London Underground will have to meet the full costs of the British Rail track over which its services run? If so, the inevitable consequence will be higher fares on London Underground. That question has not been


answered in the White Paper or the franchising document or in the Select Coimmittee on Transport. Where there is an interface between British Rail and London Underground, what will be the cost to London Underground of the establishment of the track authority?
I make no apology for referring to a matter that has not so far been raised in the debate—the future of the British Transport police and their role on London's underground system. With no publicity whatever, the Government issued a consultation document entitled, "The Future Status of British Transport Police". For a long time, that document was not even available in the Vote Office and it was certainly given no fanfare. It was supposed to address the question of the future of the British Transport police following the privatisation of British Rail, but it also contains an important section which should concern each and every Londoner. The Government are considering removing British Transport police from London's underground.
Everyone who uses London's underground and tries to travel around the city will consider such a proposal foolhardy in the extreme. It is also discourteous to the British Transport police, given the high standard of skilled policing that we receive from them on London's underground. It is true that there are not enough police on the underground, but despite the lack of resources the British Transport police provide a good service and who are endeavouring, with some success, to reduce crime on the system. In my view, it is ludicrous to contemplate their removal. I hope that the Minister will reassure us today by telling us that the suggestion has already been consigned to the dustbin.
No doubt the proposal has been dictated by the need to save some money, but it will no do so. It will merely mean more hazards to those who use the underground by increasing the risk of crime. In additon, we must remember that the British Transport police have always played an important role in trying to promote safety. Many of us will recall the great bravery of members of that force at the time of the King's Cross fire.
It is only fair that I should refer to the staff who try to provide a good service on London's transport. It is fashionable to criticise those whom the public meet. Their morale is low because they are constantly the subject of unfair criticism by travellers who are themselves deeply frustrated by the poor service that they receive. The staff on our underground and at British Rail Network SouthEast stations get all the brickbats, yet they are merely victims.
It is the Government who are responsible for the delays, the cancellation of services and the high fares. They are the people who presided over the decline in mobility and in our transport system throughout London. I hope that when the next opportunity arises—albeit some time away—the good people of London will reflect upon that point and that their criticism of the guilty people will be reflected in the ballot box.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on having secured this debate and on his assiduity in still being here at 3 am. He was in some doubt as to whether it is Monday or Tuesday. I know that it is 15 December, which, if I may be forgiven

and if it is not lese-majesté, is a dies mirabilis for me because, on this day four years ago, we won the Epping Forest by-election. I should like to record that fact for that, if for no other reason. Although it is a huge pleasure to be here, amid the sea of faces that I see arrayed in front of me, that fact gives the debate a particular piquancy.
I welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who I imagine might have strayed into the Chamber awaiting further events.

Mr. Henry McLeish: The Minister should be apprehensive.

Mr. Norris: That, of course, is not for me, I am delighted to say. In particular, our colleague, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is clearly concentrating hard on future debates. I do not propose to disturb his intense and voluble concentration at this hour.
I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would convey my condolences to Ewan Cameron's relatives. I am very sorry to hear the news that the hon. Gentleman brought to the House. There is very little else that one can say. The hon. Gentleman very much appreciated what Mr. Cameron was able to do for his party and, indeed, for the hon. Gentleman personally.
I should welcome specifically the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). He is an Essex man. I am, of course, only an honorary Essex man; I was chosen because I had the necessary Essex credentials, which, at the time, were a great deal of money and very little taste. I have since managed to shed at least one of those credentials. I now have slightly less money and probably even less taste, but that is arguable. The hon. Gentleman is deputising for his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is engaged in deep research at this very minute and is unavoidably unable to be with us. None the less, we have had a very interesting debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, south raised a question about roads. Colleagues have interpreted the debate as being about London Transport, the company. I suppose that the debate is capable of being interpreted as meaning London transport generally.
My hon. Friend made an important point. I very much agree with him that road-building is not the answer to graphs which show ever-escalating vehicle ownership. It is an extraordinary phenomenon. I view such statistics rather on the same basis as one views population forecasts—not as inevitabilities—and therefore something for which we have to plan by laying down acres of concrete, but, on the contrary, as a warning of what is likely to happen unless we take action to change people's habits of vehicle ownership.
On that basis, my hon. Friend will know that in London we have four large continuing projects—the A406, the A13, the Hackney M11 link road and the east London river crossing. Those routes apart, each of them serves a distinct strategic purpose—our main aim for roads in London is to relieve congestion and to reduce accidents. That is exactly as it should be.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South that red routes merely delay Armageddon. I appreciate his argument that, whenever we do something


to improve road capacity, all that happens is that traffic inevitably fills up the available road space. However, one of the things that has impressed me about the pilot programme is that it has not concentrated on maximising volume; it has regulated existing volume. The number of vehicles per hour entering the red route pilot scheme now at peak times is 1,200, which was the number before the pilot began.
It is important to emphasise that bus times and bus reliability have improved considerably as a result of that pilot route—that is extremely relevant to London Transport. As a consequence, 8,700 extra passengers a week now use the 43 and the 43X on that route, in comparison with a Londonwide reduction in bus patronage of 2·5 per cent. No doubt that reduction is a consequence of the fall in general economic activity.
The difference in passenger numbers achieved under the pilot scheme gives us hope for the future. We should follow that marker, which suggests that we can make people switch to public transport if it is made better by improving reliability and journey times.
The other great advantage of the red route pilot scheme has been the reduction in the accident rate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South shares my delight in that. Over the pilot red route, the accident rate has reduced by 17 per cent., as opposed to the 7 per cent. reduction achieved in the boroughs through which that route passes. That pilot route has been an excellent experiment and we are now embarked upon the substantive programme to provide about 300 miles of priority routes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I cannot disagree with the Minister on the figures, but he will be aware that there is a great deal of apprehension in the areas that will be subject to the red route programme for next year. People believe that the economic activity of roadside business should not be prejudiced, especially at a time of particular economic difficulty. A balance must be struck to ensure that the proposed red routes do not lead to the closure of shops and small businesses. I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind when he talks in the months ahead to the traffic director for London and others.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I have a great deal of affection for businesses, especially small ones. I have made it clear at every stage that, if I seriously believed that the pilot route programme had a disadvantageous effect on businesses, I would stop it dead in its tracks. I repeat that assurance.
Although there is evidence, sadly, that businesses on the pilot red route have done badly in the past couple of years, the effects of failure have been no less sad for businesses further away from that route. I believe that that is now accepted by most objective observers. The evidence suggests that the improved legislation of parking—more than 600 new, legal, free parking spaces have been provided on the pilot route—has improved facilities for businesses in terms of not only their customers but loading and unloading. I accept the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, and I assure him that I am keeping it in mind. There is no evidence from the pilot route, however, to suggest that prospects for businesses have been damaged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South made a thoughtful speech and I should like to refer to some of the issues that he raised. The report of the MMC on London Underground has been mentioned several times. The House will recall that that report recognised the concept of the decently modern metro. It quoted London Transport's estimate that between £700 million and £750 million was needed to achieve that aim in a broad 10-year cycle. We remain committed to that concept and those estimates have yet to be substantiated and fleshed out by LT.
I await with interest a more detailed plan showing how we shall achieve our decently modern metro target, what standards we shall be looking for and how they will be achieved in terms of time and money. Neither the MMC report nor the Government's response made a commitment to any particular level of funding. They stressed London Underground's estimate of the likely funds that would be needed.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: Such is the interest in this debate that I may find myself short of time, but I should not want to deny the hon. Gentleman his hour of glory at the Dispatch Box. I hope that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North will be even more prepared to join in the debate.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall be brief; I accept that earlier I took longer than I proposed. In February, the Minister for Public Transport reiterated that the Government accepted the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which showed a need for funding of £700 million per annum. He went on to say:
a massive programme of improvements will be made to the Central line". [Official Report, 17 February 1992: Vol 204, c. 157.]
He also said that there would be consequential refurbishment of the Angel station and that other stations would be improved. Is that still on target, or is it on the backboiler as a result of the autumn statement?

Mr. Norris: I hoped not to have to say this to the hon. Gentleman because he is a decent chap and, although I am glad that few people are listening to me say it, I rather like him: he should not pick up briefs from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who has obviously told him that his chances for promotion to the shadow Cabinet will be increased by accepting them. He should know that Angel station is open now. The refurbishment is worth £72 million; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West should have told the hon. Gentleman that before inviting him to speculate on the outcome of London Underground's plan. Never mind; better luck next time. We are all grateful to see the hon. Gentleman here and hope that he will stay for at least the next three years.
We have stressed that the amount of funding for London Transport must be determined against the Government's overall spending priorities. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey stressed that this is a difficult year, in which it has been necessary for every Department to rein in some of its expectations.
I have always taken the view that public expenditure projects must be assessed on the basis of not only desirability, which is important, but affordability. Every hon. Member, especially those who have been involved in local government, knows about the cut that is actually a


cut in our ambitions rather than in cash. We have been able to maintain total funding for London Transport, including the Jubilee line, at about £1 billion a year over the next three years, which is a substantial commitment indeed. It is higher in real terms than in any previous year prior to the current one and higher than any level achieved when the Labour party was in office.
It is for London Transport to determine the details of the expenditure survey results that we have made available, but it is likely that London Transport will be able to spend about £500 million more over the next three years than it has been able to spend in the past three years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South asked why leasing is available to British Rail but not to London Underground. I am sure that he is aware that for leasing to be attractive to the Government, we must see an after-market for the product to be leased; in other words, the Government merely wish to use the asset for a set period and then pass it on. In so far as we have created an after-market in rail services, through the franchising proposals, it is clearly appropriate for the Government to allow British Rail, subject to certain conditions, to enter into leasing commitments for rolling stock. In the absence of any such after-market for London Underground, leasing of itself is of no advantage to the Government.
We must remember that, without the transference of risk, the Government cannot contemplate leasing on any terms other than those on which they contemplate other borrowings. The Government are the keenest borrower in any market, so leasing, which is essentially a financing operation, offers no real benefit unless it is accompanied by the existence either of an after-market or of the concept of transference of risk.
I had the pleasure of travelling on the Northern line yesterday morning—by that, I mean Monday, which is the last day of which I have any clear recollection. Many of us are familiar with that line. It has suffered badly in the past not only from under-investment—it is freely acknowledged that under-investment has been a symptom of London Underground for many years under Administrations of both colours—but from less than effective management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South knows that the management situation has changed. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report recognised that the Northern line management had improved immeasurably, as had its service quality. With typical thoroughness, my hon. Friend invited me some months ago to join him on a trip on the Northern line—I had been in my job just over 24 hours when he issued his invitation. Unfortunately for him, we had a flawless journey from start to finish, with tidy platforms, clean trains and polite staff; it was a thoroughly pleasant journey to work. None the less, my hon. Friend spent every second of the journey telling me how awful the journey was on the other 364 days of the year.
I know that my hon. Friend does a good job for his constituents, but I must tell him that for the most recent two reporting periods—the four-week periods ending 12 September and 10 October—the Northern line ran about 98 per cent. of its scheduled trains, compared with a network target of 97·5 per cent., and achieved 94 to 95 per cent. of timetabled intervals between trains, compared with a target of 91 per cent.
It is for London Transport, of course, to assess priorities for the 1992 settlement. I know that my hon.

Friend will continue to press on LT, and on me, the case for the Northern line refurbishment. I can confirm that after the Central line programme is finished—costing about £800 million—we shall move on to the Northern line, but it will be for LT to determine exactly when that happens. My hon. Friend is right to say that future years' public expenditure survey negotiations are uncharted waters for us, but I hope that we shall be able to move on to the work as quickly as we can.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the Jubilee line extension, so I am glad to be able to throw some light on the present state of affairs. I must preface my remarks by telling the hon. Member for Thurrock again that he ought not to stray into unfamiliar territory; he seems to make the mistake that some of his colleagues—in local government as well as in the House—have made, in inviting the Government to make up the deficit caused by the collapse of Olympia and York.
Other counsels have been wiser, and it has been pointed out that when Canary Wharf is 15 minutes away from Green Park, its value as a piece of real estate will be substantially enhanced. That argument is certainly not lost on the bankers who now find themselves the owners of the property. Their commitment to the attempt to put a deal together on the terms originally agreed between the Government and Olympia and York has been perfectly genuine.
The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to confirm in his autumn statement that the Government's commitment to the Jubilee line extension partnership is intact. I underline that the commitment is a substantial one of about £1.6 billion. The Government have always recognised that the partnership demanded that there be participation by the private sector. That substantial participation amounts to about £400 million in cash.
I am as disappointed as all hon. Members are that the negotiations to sign that agreement have not yet been concluded. There is no evidence of anything other than good faith on all sides. Remembering the amount of time taken and the costs that my solicitor managed to pass on to me when he recently conveyed to me a house worth marginally more than £100,000, I reckon that when dealing with £400 million of my money, I should want my solicitor to be even more keen on my behalf. I am not surprised, in all seriousness, that, given the complexity of the negotiations and the complexity of the document that was agreed between LT and Olympia and York, detailed negotiations are required.
One of the stumbling blocks, which I know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has long recognised because of his long experience of the project, is that we are now dealing with a disparate bunch of groups, including American banks, Canadian banks, Swiss banks, other European banks and British banks, all with different interests, securities, ambitions and liquidity ratios. We are making progress in that context. I hope to be able to have happier news in due course. The outcome will always depend on us reaching agreement on the terms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has laid down.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for illuminating a little of what is happening. Would he summarise the position by letting the House know whether


he can honestly say to us that he and the Government are optimistic that there will be a satisfactory outcome in the near future?

Mr. Norris: I am sorry that I cannot express a personal view on the negotiations. I believe that in the public interest—I am acutely conscious of the interests of the taxpayers, whom I serve—it is appropriate for me simply to give the House a record of where the negotiations now stand. The opera is not over until the fat lady sings. This particular fat lady has not even got out her music sheet. When the deal is signed, then the deal is done. I hope that that will be as soon as possible, but I do not speculate on the outcome. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will understand.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also raised the question of Riverbus. Riverbus is a private sector initiative. It is essentially a marketing enterprise very imaginatively put together by the the developers of Canary Wharf and of Chelsea Harbour. I appreciate the problem that Riverbus has made towards viability but, as the House knows, it is some way from it at the moment.
I am also satisfied, as is LT, that there are significant public transport options for those arriving at London Bridge and seeking to make their way to Canary Wharf. That is the peak journey for the present riverbus service. The alternatives include the D1, the docklands light railway and the Waterloo-City link. In those circumstance, the Government take the view that their responsibility to provide a public transport network is adequately discharged.
Hon. Members have raised the question of the possible acceptance of Riverbus into the travelcard system. That is not nearly as easy as is sometimes suggested, not least by the energetic Mr. William Edgerley, who never loses an opportunity to press the case for Riverbus—rightly so, as managing director of the company. The House will appreciate that there is a given pot of money coming from travelcard revenues. If a large slug of that is to provide for a Riverbus contribution, it must come from London Buses, London Underground or Network SouthEast. Riverbus is a very expensive small commodity selling a very expensive product into a less expensive market.
This year's settlement fully maintains provision for the crossrail scheme and it provides for more than £200 million worth of preparatory work. That underlines the Government's commitment to the scheme. I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Member for Thurrock once more, but the east London line extension is not a British Rail scheme. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would remind him that it is a London Transport scheme. It is for LT to decide the priority that it wants to attach to the project. The scheme is worth while and has a very good cost-benefit ratio and I hope that it will receive some priority.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Thurrock that there will be no cost to London Underground in terms of an impact on fares arising from the track authority plans contained in the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will bring forward for rail privatisation.
In that regard, the hon. Member for Thurrock will appreciate that the House could hardly consider proposals for franchising rail services, no matter what view hon.

Members take of those proposals, without considering the future of the British Transport police. If the hon. Member for Thurrock has read the document to which he referred, he will be aware that it concludes that, as far as London Underground is concerned, there is no rationale for any change. The report pays heavy and deserved tribute to the work of Chief Constable Desmond O'Brien and his men in the British Transport police, for whom I have a high regard.
I am absolutely convinced that we can do two things to make bus travel infinitely more attractive: the first relates to more bus priority measures similar to those that we are now deploying so successfully and the other is to open up the bus market in London by introducing competition, innovation, enterprise and accelerated capital through privatisation and deregulation. That process does not mean the creation of a free-for-all. It means moving from a system led by planners who believe that they know better than customers what services customers want to one in which ultimately customers determine the form and content of services.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to concessionary fares. He will know that they are the responsibility of the boroughs which finance and agree the scheme. That is right and the Government have no plans to change that. I cannot comment on the negotiations this year, because that is a matter between the local authorities and LT, except to point out that there is a reserve scheme available in legislation which, in the absence of agreement by 31 December, must be employed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred to the possibility of funds for the Jubilee line being deployed elsewhere if that project did not succeed. He will appreciate that I do not want particularly to address that prospect. He will also know that I cannot give him any such guarantee because the autumn statement makes it clear that those funds are discretely dedicated to the Jubilee line extension project and I have no authority to contemplate what might happen to those funds if they are not used for the Jubilee line.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for allowing the House to have this useful debate. I pay tribute to the serious way in which he pursues the interests of his constituents, particularly in relation to the Northern line. I stress that the London Transport settlement allows for about £500 million more investment over the next three years than was possible over the last three years. I also stress my appreciation of the hard work and enterprise of the staff, from Wilfrid Newton down to station and bus operation level, who do an excellent job.
I suspect that it is sometimes forgotten, perhaps understandably, that, although everything in London is by no means perfect, the city of London must be compared not with some of its fellow European cities which are infinitely smaller, but with perhaps a handful of world cities, such as New York and Tokyo. When one makes that comparison, one realises that there is a remarkable amount happening in London's transport structure, which provides a service with which it is difficult to find a parallel anywhere in the world.
We have a coherent strategy for making London's transport service even better. I look forward to the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, on which I know that I can rely, in improving that service further in years to come.

Water Privatisation (Scotland)

Mr. Eric Clarke: Are hon. Members aware that nuns in enclosed orders of Catholic convents get up at 3 o'clock in the morning? They get up to pray for mankind, because they think that many sins are committed at that time. I am not ridiculing that; I think it is an admirable thing for nuns to do. The only sin is that we are complying with the nonsense by coming to the House at this time of the morning. I would like to see the House reformed—I am a new boy—and I hope that any reform in Scotland will include the establishment of a Parliament in Scotland.
The Government's local reform in Scotland is preparing the way to remove from public democratically elected representatives—the councillors—their fundamental basic major responsibilities. Water and drainage are to be privatised. Responsibility for the police, fire services, education and social work are to be given to boards appointed by the Government—more quangos. [Interruption.] Yes, it is on the cards. We will have a one-tier authority with new powers, run by Tory hacks and under Tory control. In other words, we will have glorified part-time councillors appointed by the Government.
Once again, power will be centralised, and the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be answerable. He will not be answerable to a Scottish Parliament. He will riot be answerable in a referendum on major constitutional changes such as local government reform or the privatisation of water, drainage and sewerage. Instead, we shall merely have a phoney consultative document.
The alternative would be to make savings for the people. If there was no reform of local government, savings would be made in democracy, or what little is left of it. A Scottish Parliament would be the forum to reform local government. Many authorities or important quangos could be made accountable to elected Members, not simply to the Secretary of State.
The will of the people of Scotland is obvious to all of us, but not to the Government. The discussion document produced by the Government on proposals for water and sewerage in Scotland cost £50,000, and it is a sham. Research into the state of Scotland's water shows that its debt for water and sewerage is £1·2 billion. That is money which the authorities were allowed to borrow. We accept that the authorities need to update and reinvest in Scottish water and sewerage. However, the concept that privatising water and sewerage will save taxpayers' money is a total fraud.
In England and Wales, a debt of £5·028 billion was written off using taxpayers' money. The taxpayers paid £160 million for consultants and others to float the assets. Cash handouts to the tune of £1·572 billion were given to private companies. A secret deal between the Treasury and the water chairman ensured that none of the 10 water companies would pay corporation tax for the next 17 years. That was a bonanza of at least £2 billion to the new companies.
Assets worth £34·5 billion were sold for an income of £3·594 billion; £233 million-worth of property assets and recreational grounds were given away, with no clawback for the taxpayer. Some savings! The customers now pay and the taxpayers are the losers.
I give the House a quote:

We concluded that there was no case at present for a similar move in Scotland…I confirm we have no plans to privatise water services in Scotland."—[Official Report, 21 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 949.]
That was said by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Does the Minister want to comment on that?
We have obtained comparative information from the House of Commons Library. I ask the House to bear with me. The cost of water supplies per head is £25 in Scotland and £35 in England and Wales. Scotland is better off by 40 per cent. Water supply per kilometre is £2,787 in Scotland, compared with £5,531 in England and Wales. Scotland is better off by 99 per cent.
Sewerage charges per head are £18 in Scotland compared with £24 in England and Wales. Scotland is 33 per cent. better off. Sewerage costs per kilometre were £3,217 in Scotland and £3,984 in England and Wales. Scotland is 24 per cent. better off. In 1987–88, the industry in Scotland employed 6,237 people. In 1991, there were 6,222 employees.
The benefits of privatisation are for the few. Company chairmen have received wage increases of up to 267 per cent.—that is the highest increase, for the chairman of Southern Water. Such chairmen have rightly been called water millionaires in the press. Chairmen have received share options. The chairman of North-West Water took up an option of 225,524 shares. Water companies have gone into property development. They have moved into the management of hotel sports complexes. The priority in such realms is not water supplies. Of course, the benefits to the consultants who worked on behalf of the Government are obvious.
The disadvantages are for the many. The cost to users of water will increase. They have increased on average by 50 per cent. in England and Wales since privatisation. Jobs have been lost. There is less emergency cover. The average water loss is 20 per cent. There is inadequate investment in safety. According to a recent analysis, the quality of water in Scotland is better than the average for England and Wales.
The water companies have increased charges for the use of reservoirs and so on, with no concessions for the unemployed and old-age pensioners. In Lothian and other areas, such concessions are available. There is lack of public access to some of the most beautiful parts of our land. There will be more disconnections because people cannot afford to pay the high price of the reality—

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since water privatisation in England and Wales, about 50,000 people have had their water cut off? In one area, one in seven households have been cut off. Does he also agree that Strathclyde does not get one penny from the Government, although the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that about £237 million has been paid to Scottish water and sewerage authorities? They borrow the money. They borrowed £83 million under section 94 of the Water Act 1973. There is a debt of £418 million for water and sewerage, which is costing the taxpayer about £66 million per year.
The Minister knows that no one in Scotland wants water privatisation. If he wants to do something, why does he not ask the Government to do the same for Scotland as they did for England and Wales, and wipe out the £5,000 million debt, giving it a green dowry? Why do we not get that for Scotland, so that we can bring water up to the standard required by the European Community?

Mr. Clarke: No one in Scotland—with the exception of Scottish Ministers—wants privatisation of water, drainage and sewerage. We hit the streets of Midlothian with our pamphlets and petitions. The public reception was one of total opposition to privatisation. Even the most cynical members of our community were moved to sign, and gladly supported our efforts. I am sure that that is reflected throughout Scotland.
The management and protection of that natural asset and essential service is in good, capable hands in Scotland. The water and drainage committees of the regional councils and the highlands and islands authorities provide a first-class service. Many of the authorities inherited assets from our long-sighted forefathers, and many of them were Conservative-controlled councils. Money to modernise can be borrowed and paid back efficiently without privatisation or the need to destroy a major industry or the organisations concerned.
Anglers, sporting people and those employed in the industry, as well as the people of Scotland, will not stand by and allow it to pass into private hands without a fight. The Labour party has declared war on the tap tax. The popularity of the Conservatives is at its lowest level. Even Tory councillors and other Tory supporters are involved with us in the anti-privatisation battle.
The Government's role is to listen to and accept the will of the people. Scotland is saying no to the privatisation of water and sewerage, to the reorganisation of local government and to the Government's proposals. Above all, they are saying yes to a Scottish Parliament. If we had such a Parliament, we would not have so little time to discuss essential services, and the backbone of the Scottish economy, or have to discuss them at a quarter to four in the morning. We would have the opportunity to debate the matter and make an in-depth input to the discussion.
I shall end there, because I think that some of my colleagues wish to speak. Many of them are here, and there would have been many more if the Scottish Grand Committee, which is also an essential part of our role, had not been sitting this morning. Few Conservative Members were elected to Scottish seats, and there are few of them here, with the exception of the Minister. It would have done them the world of good to come here and listen to what we have to say.

Mr. John McAllion: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) for securing this important debate. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of what will happen in the next one and a half hours or to suggest that all of Scotland is agog with anticipation of what hon. Members present this morning have to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) can certainly not be described as being agog with anticipation at the progress of the debate.
It is symbolic that the Westminster Parliament finds time to debate a matter so critical to Scots in the middle of the night when 99 per cent. of its Members are absent and in bed, most of them blissfully unaware that the subject is being debated. In those circumstances, the clear message is that if Scotland wants Scottish political issues to be treated seriously it must first remove those issues from the responsibility of this House and transfer them to a Scottish Parliament which will be established in our own country in the very near future.
In his foreword to the consultation paper on the future of water services in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
The Government will reach a decision on the right way forward in the light of responses to this consultation paper.
If one takes that sentence at face value, one could be forgiven for believing that if the overwhelming majority of responses to the consultation paper were opposed to privatisation, the Government would simply accept the Scottish people's opposition to privatisation and drop their plans to privatise water services. However, when the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on the future of water and sewerage in Scotland and was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) as to whether he would accept the results of the consultation, he replied:
I will accept the findings of a general consultation, but I shall assess the strengths and merits of the arguments that are advanced."—[Official Report, 17 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 157.]
An important distinction has to be made. The Secretary of State said that he would assess the strengths of the arguments, which means that if 1,000 or 100,000 or 1 million Scots respond to the consultation by saying that they oppose privatisation of water but the Secretary of State does not like their arguments, he will simply dismiss their response, but if only 10 or 20 Scots say that they are in favour of privatisation and the Secretary of State likes their arguments, he will give more weight to those 10 or 20 responses than to the million responses opposing privatisation.
That fact was confirmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) pressed the Secretary of State further and reminded him of the precedent of the hospital opt-outs in Aberdeen and Ayrshire before the last general election. Again, the Secretary of State replied:
As with the hospital trust consultation period, I will assess the arguments advanced and reach a decision with my colleagues on the basis of those arguments."—[Official Report, 17 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 161.]
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, may not remember the response to the consultation process on hospital opt-outs in Scotland, but between 80 and 90 per cent. of those who responded opposed the opt-outs. Yet they were simply dismissed by the Government, who went ahead anyway because they were not prepared to accept the arguments put forward. If anyone in Scotland expects this consultation process to be open-minded or democratic in any sense, he can forget it because the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland has already been made up, as has the Government's mind, because they are intent on privatising water services in Scotland.
All kinds of evidence supports the case that I am putting forward. Everyone recognises that a huge investment is needed in the water industry over the next 10 years. Both sides of the argument agree that some £5,000 million must be found to invest in water services over the next decade. If that money is to be found from within the public purse, the Secretary of State will have to find it from the money allocated to him by the expenditure system under the Westminster Parliament. The Secretary of State's block grant is allocated on a formula which determines Scotland's share of the equivalent spending in England and Wales. Until this year, Scotland used to receive about 11·76 per cent. of equivalent spending. It is important to remember that there is no equivalent


spending in England and Wales on water and sewerage as those services have already been privatised in those countries.
Therefore, if the Secretary of State is to find the £5,000 million in the next 10 years—£500 million for each of those 10 years—he will have to negotiate that sum directly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The chance of the Secretary of State for Scotland negotiating with the present Chancellor an additional £500 million of public spending to dedicate to water and sewerage in Scotland is absolutely nil. In a recent public spending round, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), boasted with other Scottish Office Ministers that they had successfully negotiated an extra £340 million over the next three years. That is about £100 million for each year to spend on housing, roads, transport, schools, the health service and all the public sector spending requirements in Scotland. If they regard that negotiation as a great success, how on earth can they realistically say to anyone in Scotland that they are seriously considering winning an extra £500 million for every one of the next 10 years to spend entirely on water and sewerage services in Scotland?

Mrs. Irene Adams: Is the Minister aware that that amount of money was almost exactly the amount that Renfrew district council found that it would need to bring its council housing stock up to a tolerable standard over the next five years? The amount that Ministers boasted of winning for Scotland would have served to save and bring up to a tolerable standard only the council's present houses.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The reality is that the Government are simply not prepared to find the money required to invest in public services in Scotland. They are certainly not prepared to invest in the water and sewerage services in Scotland. They have already made up their minds that, if that money is to be found over the next 10 years, it will have to come from private sector investment in the water and sewerage industries.
The Secretary of State for Scotland claims that the consultation domcument contains eight different options for the future of water and sewerage in Scotland, six of which are in the public sector and only two in the private sector. But only the two in the private sector are being seriously considered by the Government because of their desire to attract private investment into the water and sewerage industries in Scotland. Those two private sector options are outright privatisation on the model of the English and Welsh water companies or franchising by contracting out the water services to private companies.
It does not matter what anyone in Scotland says or thinks, because the Government have already made up their minds. If money has to be found on such a scale, it will be found by attracting private sector investment and selling the water industry in Scotland to the private sector.

Mr. Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have no intention of providing the £5,000 million that is needed? They want to do the same as they have in England and sell all the assets of the water companies and the local authorities. They want to sell the 365,000 acres of land. There have been 10,000 complaints to the Office of Water Services about water disconnections.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If the private sector is to invest in the water industry, it will do so at a price, which will be the profits that the private sector is able to extract from the water industry or, to be more exact, from those who pay for the industry—the consumers.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) referred to privatised companies awarding their chairmen rises of 267 per cent. Did it occur to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that, in the House only two weeks ago, we voted on whether or not to allow the public sector—where Scottish water employees currently work—a rise of only 1·5 per cent? Whatever that vote was made out to be, that was what it was about.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right. This Minister voted to restrict low-paid workers in the public sector to a 1.5 per cent. pay increase, but he has patted on the back bosses awarding themselves huge pay increases at the expense of water consumers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Does the hon. Gentleman approve of Strathclyde's recent decision to increase the salary of its director of water services by 20.9 per cent.?

Mr. McAllion: I do not support that decision; I would never support a decision of that kind, the more so since it involved a much larger increase than that paid to the low-paid people who work for Strathclyde region.
What will this decision mean for the ordinary people of my area? First, it will mean that the price of water will rise for consumers in Scotland. In their consultation document, the Government provide figures for the average cost per household of supplying water and sewerage services in Tayside over the past three years. It works out at £94. Recent figures published in The Observer show that the average cost per household in England and Wales under the privatised system is £169, which is £75, or 80 per cent., higher than in Tayside. The comparable figure in Anglia is £227 per household, and in South-West it is £228. That is more than £130, or 140 per cent., more expensive than in Tayside. It is therefore easy to see what the result of privatising water services in Scotland will be. It will be to push up the price to the consumer of a service which will not be so good as the one provided by the public sector.
The great gulf between the prices charged by the two sectors is no accident. The regional councils are allowed to borrow money from the public sector at rates much lower than those commercially available to the private water companies. It costs the private companies more to borrow than it does the public water authorities. That means that the former pay higher loan charges than the public sector bodies, and the resulting higher water charges are inevitably passed on to the consumers. Above all, private water companies have to make profits and pay out dividends to their shareholders.
My hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the fact that all this will not relieve pressure on the public purse. In England and Wales, the Government wrote off £5·5 billion of capital debt at the time of water privatisation, and gave the private water companies a further green dowry of £1·5 billion. They also introduced tax allowances running into the next century which will be worth a total of £7·7 billion. In all, more than £14 billion


of public money was tied up in the privatisation of the water industry in England and Wales. In return, the public purse got only £3·5 billion from the sale—a net—loss of £10·9 billion.
I do not underestimate the scale of the investment required in the water industry in Scotland over the next 10 years, but it is dwarfed by the public handouts that the Government have given to the private water companies in England and Wales. If Scotland could have less than half that sum, we should have no problem meeting the investment requirements of the industry in Scotland.
There will be consequences far more serious even than the financial ones. A book called "The Dundee Source Book of Scottish History" takes us back to the situation in Dundee before we had public water authorities. It describes what things used to be like before the water industry was brought into public ownership and massively improved. My first extract comes from a poem written by Thomas Hood about Dundee in 1815. It reads:
The town is ill-built and is dirty besides"—
—much has changed since then—

"For with water it's scantily, badly supplied.
By wells, where the servants, in filling their pails,
Stand for hours, spreading scandal, and falsehood, and tales.
And abounds so in smells that a stranger supposes
The people are very deficient in noses."

The people of Dundee are not "very deficient in noses", but that extract points out that the city's crude water supply at that time made Dundee dirty and smelly.
On the same page is a list of the causes of death in Dundee in 1833. Cholera stands out, with 137 deaths, and dysentery, with 15 deaths. Fevers, including typhoid, caused the deaths of 132 people. The lack of a clean water supply to the city caused more than 200 deaths that year. The elimination of typhoid and cholera is largely thanks to work undertaken by the public sector in the years since then—by corporations, town councils, county councils, water boards, and regional councils. Their work has been one of the great successes of the second half of the 19th century and of the 20th century—and it is all to be put at risk because of the Government's determination to privatise Scotland's water industry.
The Minister laughs, but I remind him that in Scotland it is currently illegal to disconnect a domestic water supply other than for technical reasons. It is illegal because in Scotland it is recognised as barbaric deliberately to put people's health at risk for private profit. We now run the risk of seeing the reintroduction into our communities of typhoid, dysentery and other diseases which were eliminated many years ago with the introduction of proper public water supplies.
When he made his statement to the House on 17 November, the Secretary of State for Scotland was pressed again and again to say whether he would change the law to provide for the disconnection of water supplies to domestic consumers. He answered:
Disconnections are not legal in Scotland; they have been legal in England before and after privatisation. We shall address Scottish circumstances in accordance with special Scottish needs.
That did not satisfy hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. When pressed again, the Secretary of State stated:

"There is no legal consent available to disconnect water in Scotland. I have no plans to make any change in that. I shall

be considering the range of options in the light of the submissions in the consultation paper, but at present that does not arise.
Pressed once again, the Secretary of State replied:
I have already said that I have no plans for disconnection but, clearly, the future structure of the water industry must be decided and, in due course, when one of the eight options—or one of the variants of those options—laid down in the consultation paper has been decided upon, the other factors relevant to that option will also have to be decided.
The
other factors relevant to that option
include the disconnection of domestic supplies. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) put it to the Secretary of State that
the only way in which the privatisation of water services in Scotland can possibly work is if powers to disconnect domestic premises are introduced".
The Secretary of State replied:
That is not an issue that I have yet addressed. The time at which to address it will be the time at which we decide on a particular option that might make it necessary."—[Official Report, 17 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 155–61.]
The
particular option that might make it necessary
is the privatisation of the water industry. The reality is that the Government intend to privatise the water industry and, once they have done that, to change the law in Scotland to allow for disconnections—and to put at risk all the medical advances made in our country over the past 100 years.
Since privatisation in England and Wales, there have been 50,000 domestic disconnections. Between April and September, domestic disconnections increased—exactly contrary to the comments made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his statement on 17 November. What will people do when their water and sewerage services are cut off and they cannot afford reconnection? If they take water from the streams, but use the same streams as lavatories, we risk seeing the reintroduction into our communities of diseases unheard of in our country for many a long year. That is the risk that the Minister and his like are now running. That is completely unacceptable to the people of Scotland and we shall do whatever is necessary to stop the Minister and the Government from proceeding with their proposals.

Mr. George Galloway: I note the mirth on the Conservative Bench. I say "Bench" rather than "Benches" because I think that the public, when they read the report of our debate, should understand that behind the Minister and his lackey are rolling acres of green leather: not a single Scottish Conservative has turned up to defend the Government on this vital issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke of the history of urban Scotland before the days of municipalised water—a time of more enlightened men than the Minister, although they may have been of the same political stripe in terms of their attitude to capitalism. The Minister simply cannot understand that Opposition Members—speaking for far more than the 75 per cent. of electors who voted for the Opposition parties in Scotland at the general election—believe that there is something morally wrong with the proposal to hand over the water that God gave the Scottish people in abundance to any cheap speculator who will put his equity into Scottish water in the hope of making a profit.
The Minister seems not to grasp that there will be no other reason for speculators to do that. The city fathers—they were all fathers then—who decided to standardise and municipalise Scottish water supplies did so because they knew that, if left to naked market forces, that would not be done. They knew that the great epidemics to which my hon. Friend referred would become the norm, that the health of the work force would deteriorate and that that work force would not be able to produce the profits that the entrepreneurs wanted. Enlightened self-interest made them go along with standardisation, and led them to make the necessary investments through public expenditure. If it was true then that water could not safely be left to market forces, surely it follows that it is at best dodgy to contemplate returning it to market forces now. Surely even the Minister can understand the logic of that.
My old grandfather used to say that if the Tories could bottle the air that we breathe, they would give us masks and oxygen bottles with a coin slot and a meter so that we could pay for the very means of sustaining life. I used to laugh at that, thinking it an example of my grandfather's extremism: he was even more left wing than I am. But it is not so very far fetched, is it? Today, the Government are seriously contemplating taking the rain that God sends—the Minister laughs, but I doubt that he laughs at the idea of God on Sunday mornings; he probably goes along with the concept then.
Who, if not God, sends the rain from the skies? Yet the Minister proposes to change that rain into just another commodity. Perhaps he—right down to his mutton-chop sideboards knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. He knows the price that water will fetch on the market, the price of the bribes—dowries of all kinds—that he will stuff down the throats of the speculators, and the price that water will fetch in profits over the years for the speculators who steal it from us. The Minister appears to find those moral points funny. He should be aware, however, that the Government's minuscule support in Scotland is in grave danger of disappearing altogether if they proceed with their proposal to steal Scotland's water.
The Minister knows my constituency and knows that its socio-economic composition is such that, were it in many parts of England, it would undoubtedly be a Conservative constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) represents a similar constituency. Yet in both my hon. Friend's constituency and in mine, people are queuing, and I mean queuing, in the street for 10 minutes or more at a time to append their signatures to petitions protesting at this larceny against the Scottish people—this offence against everything decent that has been built up in Scotland over centuries. Many of them are the kind of people whom, in times gone by, the Minister would have expected to support the Conservative party, and who he—supreme optimist that he is—must surely hope will one day return to the fold.
I warn the Minister: there is no support for the proposals, even among the 25 per cent. minority in Scotland who support the Conservative party. The Government proceed with the proposals at their peril The House may say, "Why don't we sit back and let them do it?" We cannot do that because too much is at stake. In the hands of the barbarians who will buy it, our water cannot he depended upon. We cannot trust them; our water

cannot be safe in their hands. That is our contention, and it is a contention shared by many more people than voted for us on 9 April.
The question of a mandate goes to the heart of the matter. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was referring to the number of times that the Secretary of State had said that he had no plans to change the law in Scotland to allow the disconnection of private water supplies, did it not strike the Minister that that is exactly what his colleague the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), said on 21 March 1989—that the Government had "no plans" to privatise Scottish water? Does the Minister feel no moral qualms about the fact that, just a few months ago, he fought an election in Scotland denying that the Government had any plans to privatise Scottish water? The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head: clearly, he has no moral qualms. Perhaps it was naive of me to expect that he had.
It must strike the Scottish people as an offence against anything that could be called democracy that a Government seeking re-election should hide their enormously important and controversial intention—the Minister will concede that it is controversial, at least—to steal our water from us and should fail to put their proposal to the electoral test. At the general election, the number of Scottish Conservative Members increased from the nefarious nine to the embarrassing 11 who face us across the Chamber, when they can be bothered to muster here. Had the Government told the Scottish people the truth, which was that they intended to embark on a course that would lead to the privatisation of Scottish water, their ranks—had they been large enough, which they were not—would have been decimated. They lied their way back into the House by failing to acknowledge—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That is not an acceptable expression, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Galloway: I am not suggesting that any hon. Member is lying in the House, but, collectively, the Conservative party in Scotland lied its way through the general election by omission, by refusing to acknowledge its plans to privatise Scottish water. It is impossible to withdraw that contention, for I feel it in my bones. It is an allegation, not specifically about the conduct of any hon. Member but about the whole Conservative party.
I am running short of time, but I wish to conclude on a point that is not shared by every section of my party. Two Fridays ago, I was going house-to-house in Earl street in Scotstoun in my constituency, where there is water all right. It is in the form of black fungus, growing through the walls and wardrobes and into the clothes and children's toys belonging to my constituents. They ask me, "Why can't we have the capital investment to dry our houses and keep our families warm and dry?" I say, "It is because of a number of reasons connected with the kind of Government we have." They say to me that just 12 miles from that street, the first of four useless hunks of black metal sits on the River Clyde. It is a Trident submarine —one of four which together will cost the British taxpayer £33 billion. Those four useless pieces of metal are pointed nowhere and are bristling with nuclear weapons aimed at nobody.
I say to my constituents and to the Minister that, if we need £5,000 million to make Scotland's precious water even more beautiful and clear, we can take that money off the Trident budget, scrap those useless pieces of metal and beat them into the ploughshares that can make a better world for all our people.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I should like primarily to address water privatisation, but I cannot forgo commenting on the Secretary of State for Scotland's amazing interview at the weekend in which he said that decentralisation of power to a Scottish Parliament was quite unnecessary as it was to be decentralised to new local authorities instead. As everybody knows, power has been drained from Scottish local authorities and all other local authorities over the past 13 years, and the restructuring of Scottish local government is fundamentally about further erosions of the remaining limited power.
I am not interested in redrawing the map of Scottish local government; I am interested in giving back powers to the various bits of that map and in creating a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom to oversee the map as a whole. That is what subsidiarity is all about—decision-making as close to the people as possible, as the preamble to the Maastricht treaty puts it—and that is what thousands of people were demonstrating about on Saturday in Edinburgh.
Referring to water privatisation, the first thing to say is that no devolved Scottish Parliament would even consider it, as there is overwhelming opposition to water privatisation within Scotland. The second thing to say is that the Tories cannot even claim a spurious Scottish election mandate for it as there was no mention whatsoever of Scottish water privatisation in their election manifesto. They did not mention it, nobody wants it, so why are we getting it? The reason involves ideology, profits and the public sector borrowing requirement.
The ideology reason is not susceptible to logic—the private good/public bad myopic chant that has been repeated so insistently and so destructively since 1979. A consequence is the belief that adding to the PSBR is unacceptable, although private borrowing is okay. In each case, however, the sums involved are far from enormous. On some of the details, I might disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
Investment of £5 billion is required in Scottish water over the next 15 years, which means an average borrowing of £333 million each year. However, the borrowing consent for water this year is £218 million, so we are talking about an extra £115 million on a Scottish Office budget of £13 billion. The annual loan charges on that £115 million would be about £12 million—equivalent to a 5 per cent. increase on current water charges. The small amount of extra borrowing required would not be covered by the Barnett formula, as there is no comparable programme in England or Wales. It could be negotiated directly with the Treasury, which is where the problem may lie.
Some of the £115 million extra a year could come from the European development fund, a source that would not be available if water were privatised. There is, therefore, no argument in terms of investment, and to prove that further

we can look to the record in England where there has been no source of cash since privatisation that was not equally available before it.
The more we look at the argument from the point of view of public money and investment, the more ridiculous it becomes. It is the Government's fault that investment to meet the EC directives is still required. The relevant directives were issued in 1976 and 1980, but in the 1980s the Government did nothing. When the Government eventually decided to spend more public money in England, they threw it in completely the wrong direction. Some £5 billion of debts were written off for the new privatised water companies in England and Wales; £1·5 billion was handed out to those same companies; property and land worth £233 million was just given away; and £160 million was squandered on consultants and others to float the assets. None of the water companies had to pay corporation tax for 17 years—a clear £2 billion loss to the public purse.
Who has gained? Certainly not the Treasury or the public. Average bills have increased by 50 per cent. since privatisation in 1979. Last year, the number of complaints went up by 131 per cent. and, most importantly, the number of disconnections went up by 177 per cent. Since privatisation in England and Wales, 50,000 homes have been disconnected, which is the ultimate obscenity. If it came to disconnections in Scotland, I would support and become involved in direct action to stop any of my constituents from having their water turned off.
The people who require and benefit from disconnections are, of course, the shareholders and the company executives—the sole beneficiaries of water privatisation. Beneath the rhetoric, as always, lie the profits. In 1990–91 in England, pre-tax profits were £1·369 billion—£400 million of that went out in dividends. In the case of Welsh Water, that money went into luxury hotels, while £50,000 from Thames Water went into the Tory party coffers. Thousands and thousands of pounds went to the various water company chairmen.
Between 1990–91 and 1991–92, the salary of the Welsh Water chairman went up from £76,000 to £143,000, the salary of the chairman of Southern Water went up from £78,000 to £142,000, and the salary of the chairman of Thames Water went up from £73,000 to £160,000. Over and above that, last year, the 10 chairmen made £7·42 million through share options—buying shares cheaply and selling them at a profit.
Instead of windfall gains at public expense, we need a policy that centres on public investment and fair charging. Next year, in Scotland, water charges will be related to council tax bands, which is a step in the right direction. Post-privatisation we will be faced with either a high flat-rate charge or water metering. Both cause hardship for low-income families and both bring disconnections in their train.
Water belongs to us all and the supply of water is a fundamental right. We in Scotland will not stand idly by while the water is stolen and that right is abolished. If the Government were wise, which they are not, they would listen to the people of Scotland on this issue. If they were wise, they would not just consider the popularity of our case and the justice of our cause; they would think about the political repercussions for themselves of treating the Scottish people with such undisguised contempt.

Mrs. Irene Adams: When I made my maiden speech in 1990, I referred to my late grandfather who had come here some 60 years before, not as a Member of the House, but as a hunger marcher. When he arrived here he was quickly marched off to the nearest railway station and put on a train back to Scotland.
I asked myself then, and I do so now, what has really changed in that time? After all, the rate of unemployment is higher now than it was then, and more people are now homeless. We can conclude that very little has changed.
That, however, would be singularly untrue. There were great changes that were not handed out by the great and good here at Westminster but were hard fought and hard earned by people such as my grandfather, who marched all that way on an empty stomach.
For example, wages councils achieved great changes in working conditions, and changes improved local government so that it is directly elected by people to serve them, yet the Minister is now determined to take that system away and hand out quangos to his friends. There were slum clearance changes and massive municipal house building programmes. We saw the national health service come into being, and equal rights for women.
Those are but a few of the things that changed in that time, but in 1979 a Government were elected with a vision—the survival of the fittest and the weakest shall go to the wall. That Government set about dismantling each of the gains that people had fought for and won. That vision was not acceptable to the people of Scotland.
In the election earlier this year, the Government asked the Scottish people whether they wanted to maintain the status quo—the Union. The Conservative party was the only party to ask that question. Twenty-five per cent. of the Scottish people said yes, but 75 per cent. said, "We may not all want the same thing but we do not want the status quo."
We are continually told that this is the listening Government and the consulting Government. They were not so keen to listen to that 75 per cent. of the Scottish people, so they said, "We won't bother with them. We will get a couple of dozen of our mates round to breakfast and hear what they have to say." Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the rest of us what they had to say; we are still awaiting the outcome of that breakfast meeting.
The Government consulted people on hospital trusts. The people told them that they did not want them, so the people got them. The Government are about to consult people on the privatisation of water, which they forgot to mention in their election manifesto. They did not tell the Scottish people that they intended to do anything with water. They are now telling people that they will consult them, but they are not that sure whether they will accept the answer the people give—they will weigh up all the arguments first.
We have heard that 50,000 people have had their water disconnected in England and Wales. That is not only a disgrace but morally wrong. Water is a right of the people, not something to be sold to the people. It is something to be paid for and administered by the people, but not to be taken and sold back to them. It reminds me of the story of the white men saying to the Indians, "We will buy your land for this string of beads." The Indians laughed,

because they had no concept whatsoever of such ownership. But the Indians were right, because nobody should own the land or water apart from all the people.

Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her ringing call for the nationalisation of housing.

Mrs. Adams: The Minister apparently heard that, but he does not hear anything else that the people of Scotland have to say. Did he hear the 25,000 voices in Edinburgh on Saturday? Perhaps he will comment on that later—but I doubt it. The 25,000 voices that were heard on Saturday wanted many things, but they did not want the status quo. Apparently the Government had their ear plugs in when those voices were speaking.
When I, like my grandfather, go home to Scotland on the train every week I wonder why I return empty-handed from the Westminster Parliament to the people who elected me—from a Government who are in the minority in Scotland, yet who continue to force their views down the throats of the people of Scotland. I tell them now that they had better be the listening Government. If they are not, there will be little of the Union left.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) about the fact that a debate of such magnitude has to take place at this hour and in such circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) that it is deplorable that only one Scottish Conservative Member is here.
I also greatly regret the fact that no hon. Member from any of the other Opposition parties in Scotland is here, either—although I believe that a Liberal Democrat came in for 30 seconds while my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) was speaking. It is unfortunate that no one from the other parties is here, because it would have been helpful for us to be able to show that all the Scottish Opposition parties are united in the call to oppose the privatisation of water.
Like the other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to raise my voice to express what the people of Scotland are saying. There is widespread opposition to the Government's proposal, but also widespread cynicism about whether there is any value in contributing to the current consultation. There is a view that the Government have already made up their mind, that they are working through a political project, which we are also seeing in local government. That project involves the centralisation of many powers to the Scottish Office and its civil servants, the destruction of many local authority services, the privatisation of many of the services that are not being destroyed, with many of the services that remain handed over to quangos stuffed full of Conservative cronies.
That is a disappointing vision of how the governance of Scotland is to operate in future—but the people of Scotland have every justification for believing that that is the perspective that the Government have in mind for them.
I accept, as do most hon. Members, that something has to be done about water and sewerage in Scotland. We realise that bills will have to be met for the necessary work, but the Government must give us a commitment that they


will genuinely seek the best way to provide the service, rather than starting from what happens to suit their dogma.
I am disappointed that the Government have not published the Quayle Munro report. Clearly there is information there that would enable people prepared to examine the subject without preconceptions to establish which of the options is most likely to meet the needs of Scotland's people at the minimum affordable cost. The fact that the report has not been published leads us to the conclusion either that there is something in it that the Government want to hide, or that it would reveal to us that they had already made up their mind.
That is regrettable, because there is now a cynicism in Scotland that goes beyond the ranks of those who would normally oppose the Government and all their works. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have been surprised by the enthusiasm with which people are queuing up to sign petitions against water privatisation. But I am also despondent about the degree to which they feel that what they do will not make a blind bit of difference anyway. That is not healthy in the Scottish body politic.
The Government are playing with fire; they are alienating the vast majority of the Scottish population from the political process. They may manage to get through one manoeuvre or another; they may manage to perform a particular action—but in the longer term what they are doing is unhealthy for the democratic process. I believe that the Government will be surprised at what they are sowing for the longer term.
There is alienation not simply from the Minister's party, but from the political process itself. The Government are forcing people outwith the bounds of normal democratic politics, which is not a healthy development. We have already seen among the ranks of some of the Opposition parties fundamentally undemocratic currents and elements that choose to operate in an undemocratic manner. Like many other people, I am not especially happy about that, but I recognise that that is the direction in which those groups feel obliged to move.
The Government must take account, to a far greater extent than they have been prepared to do in the past, of Scottish opinion. I hope that, when the consultation views come in, the Government will give evidence, after they have produced their conclusion, that they have actually listened to what Scots have said and not simply proceeded on the basis of doing what they had already made up their mind to do before the exercise began.

Mr. Henry McLeish: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Chris Smith.

Mr. McLeish: That is close, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is 4.40 am, so there may be some excuse.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Please accept my apologies.

Mr. McLeish: I should not mind the mistake if you had not mistaken me for a London Member. Scots may take some umbrage, but we shall continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) should be congratulated on winning this debate. It is a subject that the Government would not bring before

the House, partly because of the embarrassment it would cause even to sections of the Conservative party in Scotland, including councillors and some of the Minister's hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who I am sure will join us at a later date in criticising the proposal heavily.
It is also important to say that this has been an excellent debate. My hon. Friends have focused sharply on the issues. There has been passion and knowledge, and my hon. Friends have demonstrated the outrage that is felt throughout Scotland about the ultimate absurdity, even for this Government. To talk about the "ultimate absurdity" involves taking into consideration some offences and injuries to the Scots over the past 14 years which are themselves pretty dramatic and pretty terrible.
The debate has highlighted three particular points. First, the Government's attitude has shown that there is a compelling case for the issue to be debated in Scotland in a Parliament of Scots where it can be debated by Scots for Scots. It could be given appropriate time and importance there, and such a Parliament would enable Scots to view the proceedings, rather than our having a debate at this time of the morning 400 miles away from the scene of activity.
The second point that has emerged is that there is no compelling case for water privatisation. It is an absurdity and I look forward to listening to the Minister trying to justify such a measure. We shall, of course, be told that local government reform and water privatisation are the subjects of consultation.
The second point leads me on to the third. Who can believe any consultation process started by this Government? Both consultation processes end on 29 January next year. Is not it the case—the Minister would agree if he was being honest—that local government reform in its simplest form is a paving measure for water privatisation? The two are inextricably linked. The consultations finish at the same time. The Prime Minister goes one step further. He sees local government reform as a substitute for significant constitutional change. My hon. Friends and I disagree with that viewpoint.
It seems curious to me that when the Government are taking stock after the 9 April election, in which they were heavily defeated in Scotland, they are still pursuing a matter that seems not only to outrage Scots, but to insult them. As my hon. Friends have said, why do the Government listen to no one at any time?
The feeling of outrage, as my hon. Friends have suggested, goes well beyond party political differences. It is reaching areas that I have never seen involved, and people of all parties and of no party. The vexed question  when the Government are going to put the public interest of Scotland before the political ideology of the Conservative party.
My hon. Friends have raised a number of important issues and I will highlight some of them. My hon. Friends have mentioned the curious position of Quayle Munro. It was the consultancy company that was commissioned on 4 August to carry out a study on the options for water. The study cost the taxpayers £50,000. The Government refused to publish the brief. They have also refused to publish the report. From the Government's report that was published in the House, it is clear that there is no reference to that study, which cost £50,000 and which is supposed to be the basis for this debate and the debate that will continue until 29 January.
The Government must be asking some searching questions. Why does Quayle Munro seem to be the flavour of the month, every month in Scotland, in relation to Scottish Office work? Why has that company been given £563,000 in only a few years in relation to the Scottish Bus Group, the Skye crossing and now Scottish water and sewerage services?
It is widely known in Scotland that the firm has no technical competence or technological experience. On what considerations do the Government base their commissioning of work from that company? When the Minister responds, I hope that he will tell us why Quayle Munro seems to be favoured when most of its competitors, which are losing contracts against that firm, regard that with dismay and disbelief.
How on earth can the Opposition take seriously a report published by the Government, based on a report commissioned by the Government which has not been published or discussed, but which has cost the taxpayers of the United Kingdom nearly £50,000? That is a key issue to which we want an answer. This is a shabby and tawdry affair. The Government are simply not coming clean about what they are doing with taxpayers' money. We demand answers to those questions—hopefully tonight, or on the other occasions when the issue will be debated.
The necessary investment has also been highlighted in the debate. Most of my hon. Friends know that the Government are arguing that investment equals privatisation, but that is simply a smokescreen. My hon. Friends have pointed out that we do not need to go into the private sector to be privatised and to win the £5 billion-worth of investment.
Most people accept that some £5 billion may be needed over the next 15 years to tackle the Community directives about clean water and waste. That should be the basis for reasonable discussion, but we do not have such a discussion. Instead, the Government use the pretext of the necessary investment to argue for privatisation.
In many recent articles, and in terms of the comments made by my hon. Friends, the £5 billion can be won because, at the present time, the Government do not contribute a penny to the water service in Scotland. Can the Minister deny that? Does he not accept that that is true? The Minister does not seem to be sure. Do the Government accept the view that not a penny comes from the taxpayer towards the provision of water services in Scotland?

Mr. Allan Stewart: As I will explain to the House shortly, the hon. Gentleman is talking the most absolute nonsense.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister confirm that, in Scotland, apart from the borrowing consent—

Mr. Stewart: That is right—the borrowing consent.

Mr. McLeish: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive the digression, but I think that the Minister may want to know something about how capital expenditure operates. Does he not accept that the Treasury allows Scottish local authorities, by way of a signed piece of paper and a bottom-lined activity, to borrow that money? Every penny of the debt and the service comes from the consumer. Therefore, the taxpayers of Britain do not provide a penny towards the provision of the water service.

Mr. Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister can shake his head all morning.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why such borrowing consent has been consistently classified as public expenditure by every Labour Government?

Mr. McLeish: This is an interesting diversion, but let us return to the key issue. The Minister will not accept that, at present, Scottish local authorities and their consumers pay for every penny of expenditure on the water service.
That is the conclusion of experts, and it is obviously right. Does not the Minister accept that the £5 billion can be found? Calculations suggest that, at the moment, capital expenditure for water and sewerage is more than £200 million a year. The figure of £5 billion over 15 years is about £340 million a year. We are talking about the possibility of servicing the debt on an additional £100 million of capital expenditure. That is simply a smokescreen. We do not need privatisation to win such investment; at present it can be done comfortably by Scottish local authorities.
My hon. Friends have also highlighted the experience of England and Wales. I feel sorry for people in England and Wales, because they are the victims of a disaster: first the sell-off; secondly, the rip-off; thirdly, the pay-off, in the form of the Thames Water contribution to the Conservative party. What a disgrace!
The Government heap insult on injury by not only privatising the most precious asset that any community can have; they then create what my hon. Friends have described as a new batch of water millionaires. In 1988–89, the 10 chairmen of the water companies paid themselves £400,000. In 1991–92, the same 10 chairmen paid themselves £1·2 million. What about wage restraint? What about ripping off the consumer? What does that do for efficiency, value for money, effectiveness and cleaning up our dirty beaches and sewage-laden sands? Nothing whatever: it is simply a licence to print money. I hope that the Minister will address that matter.
My hon. Friends have also mentioned disconnections. "Barbarism" and "obscenity" were two words that I heard. Most Scots agree. They are simply outraged that, although in a culture which values a precious asset we have no disconnections, in England and Wales the ultimate test of the marketplace is to disconnect people.
Despite being given every opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, the Secretary of State for Scotland refused to rule out disconnections in his vision of water and sewerage services in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will want to address that problem and reassure the House that there will be no connections, regardless of the option selected. He is a charitable man. I am sure that every sinew of his body is tingling with embarrassment, outrage and concern at the possibility of disconnections taking place in his constituency of Eastwood. He has an opportunity to go one step further than the Secretary of State and tell us that there will be no disconnections, regardless of which option he selects for the future.
The debate has been good because it has highlighted, I think conclusively, the fact that the Government must be deeply embarrassed. The Scots are outraged. There is no justification for privatisation and no case on investment. What we see is the bidding of the Treasury, leading Ministers in the Scottish Office once again to bend the


knee. When will the Ministers in the Scottish Office stand up for Scottish interests and tell the Treasury and the ideologues of Smith square and No. 10 that we simply will not have a scandalous privatisation of the water service?
Let us keep the service public, let us invest what is required, and let us make it clear that every pound spent by consumers is returned to them in value for money, instead of water millionaires, disconnections and the whole paraphernalia of the disastrous privatisation in England and Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): One must congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on at least managing to work himself into a considerable lather at 4.53 in the morning. I join him and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate in congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on his success in the ballot and on providing us with this opportunity to debate the closely related subjects of local government and the future structure of water in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Midlothian and some other hon. Members have raised the issue of the Scottish Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not wish me to dilate on that matter. I repeat my view that if the people of Scotland wish to have a Scottish Parliament, they have and have always had an opportunity to obtain that by voting for the Scottish National party in sufficient numbers.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister agree that at the last election the Labour party stood on the basis that it would introduce a Scottish Parliament? It is not reasonable to say that the only choice is Unionism and the status quo or independence. Indeed, the range of people who want a Scottish Parliament of some sort stretches across all the Opposition parties; it is not solely the reserve of the SNP.

Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute for a moment that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want a Scottish Parliament. But, as I understand it, the Labour party's position is that it accepts that the Government of the United Kingdom should be made up of that party which commands a majority in this House. That is not the position taken by the SNP and it never has been.
I congratulate all hon. Members at least on their stamina in being here at 4.55 am and, indeed, on their impassioned and—I certainly would go so far as to say —on occasion, knowledgeable speeches. I look forward to seeing them all—as I am sure does their Whip, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster)—at the Scottish Grand Committee at 10.30 this morning.
The first of the two related subjects which the hon. Member for Midlothian brought to the attention of the House was local government reform. Since October, there has been tremendous interest in the consultation paper on local government reorganisation. We have sent out more than 18,000 papers as well as the consultation video and leaflets. The message that continues to emerge from those within local government, members of the public and other organisations is that we now have a considerable opportunity to improve things.
Although, of course, the 1975 reorganisation served its purpose, we now have a chance to develop a sense of

identity between communities and local authorities. That identification has been weakened in many cases. I hope that Opposition Members who did not concentrate—I do not criticise them for that—on the wider debate about local government will take the opportunity before the end of the consultation period to put in their constructive comments on the structure of local government they want to see. We believe that the process has got off to an excellent start. It is engaging many thousands of people across Scotland, whose input will be invaluable in the decision-making process.
Opposition Members made the general point that there was some hidden agenda about local government reorganisation; they suggested that it was about moving power and responsibility from local to central Government. It is specifically not about that. We have said that we believe in the enabling rather than the providing role of local government, but that does not take away the responsibilities of local government for ensuring that services are provided. If we intended to move power and responsibility from local authorities, we would hardly have announced recently the transfer of responsibility for care in the community to local authorities in Scotland. So I assure Opposition Members that there is no hidden map or agenda for the reorganisation of local government, and that it is not about the transfer of responsibility from local to central Government.

Mr. Davidson: Can the Minister give us a cast-iron guarantee that none of the powers or activities presently given to local authorities will be removed and given to central Government?

Mr. Stewart: I can repeat the general assurance. However, there are some aspects—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I shall give an example. At the moment there is a division in the responsibility for trunk roads, and the responses to the original consultation paper showed that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the present arrangements.
There is no general thrust behind the proposals to move the major responsibilities of local government to central Government. That is not the objective.

Mr. McLeish: On a lighter note, if the Secretary of State selects any of the options that do not include Eastwood as a separate entity, will the Minister assure us that he will not resign from the House?

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a wise and objective man, who will consider all the representations that he receives in his customary, objective way—[HON. MEMBERS: "All the representations?"] My right hon. Friend will consider all the representations from hon. Members and from everyone else at the end of the consultation process.

Mr. Wray: The Minister mentioned the nationalisation of housing to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). Is there to be any reform of housing? Is he aware that 37,500 people were registered homeless last year and that 11,500 of them involved families, which means that 84 children were made homeless every working day of the year?

Mr. Stewart: The debate is about local government and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we envisage that


local authorities will continue to have a responsibility as housing agencies, along with others such as Scottish Homes and housing associations.
My time is now very limited, so may I deal with hon. Members' remarks about water and sewerage? There is an inescapable need to study the structure of the water and sewerage services in Scotland. Local government reorganisation makes that necessary.
I emphasise that the consultation paper sets out a range of possible options and we genuinely want people's well-considered views on them. I hope that respondents will approach the exercise with the same seriousness and open-mindedness as we do.
Frankly, all the options have advantages and disadvantages. It is a question of striking a balance and we want to get that right. It will require careful thought. Knee-jerk reactions against privatisation may make Opposition Members feel good at any time of the day or night, but we will need more than that. Such reactions are not a substitute for thought. We must ask a number of questions.
The changes resulting from the reorganisation of local government provide a good opportunity for asking the questions, but we must also consider financing the capital investment. Opposition Members made some well-considered comments on that. There is general recognition that major capital investment will be required and there is common ground across the House on the broad level of the sums that will be required. If a public sector agency is to undertake that capital investment, fewer resources will inevitably be available for other public sector projects. In any public expenditure, there is an opportunity cost.
I must tell the hon. Member for Fife, Central that the borrowing consent that has been given to the regional and islands authorities naturally counts as public expenditure. The fact that it has counted as public expenditure under this Government and all previous Governments, whatever their political persuasion, cannot be ignored.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway)—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Sub-post Offices

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House in this short debate and apologise to the Minister for causing him some lost sleep.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I am always awake at this time in the morning.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am pleased to hear that. The Department is obviously making the Minister earn his pay.
The subject is important and I do not apologise for detaining the House at this late hour because not just hon. Members are losing sleep tonight; owners of sub-post offices throughout the country are losing sleep as a result of the future that they face. Small businesses, particularly sub-post offices, have had a tough time in recent years, partly because of the current economic context in which they must operate. The commercial world has been under considerable financial strain recently because the recession has been deeper and has lasted much longer than any of us expected.
Moreover, rural and peripheral communities have been under stress for many reasons. Agricultural subsidies have been, are being and will he reduced. Last week's announcement about the hill livestock compensatory allowances, for instance, will badly affect the sheep rearing industry, particularly in my constituency. The uniform business rate has had an adverse effect on small businesses and rural post offices. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may expand on that problem.
There have been significant reductions in the rural transport available in agricultural communities throughout the country. The changing character of villages in the past five or 10 years, as they become dormitories of bigger satellite towns rather than self-supporting communities, has contributed to the problem. It is not a new problem but has been an increasing trend in recent years. It is now becoming critical and it is worth while spending some time looking at the current position.
Sub-post offices and their future must be considered in the context of services provided by Post Office Counters. The Government's plans are clear: they intend to privatise the concern at some stage. That in itself creates the uncertainty with which owners of small sub-post offices must contend.
I have the 10th most rural seat in the entire United Kingdom, according to the reference books on those matters. It is therefore clear to me in my constituency work that sub-post offices provide a vital element in the existing rural framework. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have seen the closure of many Crown post offices. The network has been reduced and Post Office Counters as a business has been rationalising its structure and moving away from the provision of Crown post offices towards the provision of sub-post offices on an agency basis. There is much uncertainty.
My attention, and that of other hon. Members, was drawn to the subject by the benefit uprating statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security on 12 November. He said that he was trying to save money by trimming administrative costs, which is a laudable objective. He said that it was more expensive to pay giro


payments across post office counters than to make automated credit transfers, which is true. However, the Secretary of State made a worrying comment. He said:
I therefore propose to encourage more customers to accept payment of benefits directly into their bank or building society accounts.
In the exchanges following his uprating statement, the Secretary of State said:
only those who have bank accounts and can be persuaded to use the facility will do so. There can be no question of claimants in rural areas who use the Post Office or whose bank is a long distance away switching from the Post Office. There is, therefore, no threat to rural sub-post offices."—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 1015–24.]
As a result of that statement, I wrote to the Minister of State at the Department of Social Security. In an interesting reply written on 11 December, the Minister helpfully explained that the new approach that the Department was adopting to giro payments was part of the move to a citizens charter. He said that it would make more choices and services available to the public, which is laudable. He also said:
Nowadays around 40 per cent. of new pensioners, and 33 per cent. of new mothers claiming Child Benefit, ask to be paid by ACT.
The Minister said that the research conducted by his Department showed that more than 70 per cent. of all claimants had suitable bank or building society accounts and that 74 per cent. of those approaching pension age had had their wages paid into their bank account. The implication is clearly that new generations of claimants and pensioners will take a different approach to accepting state payments, and substantial numbers of those who became accustomed to receiving direct payments might opt for the new service offered by the Department.
The Minister's letter said that the Department was continuing a system of research and that, after the appropriate research and piloting, in 1993 the Department would introduce its new system, with new forms and information. The system would encourage people to consider the possibility of using automated credit transfer.
The letter contained two other items of significance to tonight's debate. The Minister mentioned the Government's commitment to post offices and the rural sub-post office network. He said:
The Government remain committed to a nationwide network of post offices in which the rural sub-post offices will continue to play a very important part. Indeed the Post Office were consulted in advance about the proposal and I understand that they do not expect any post offices to close as a result.
The Minister also said:
we do not expect a significant effect on the viability of rural sub-post offices as a result of this change.
That is an interesting letter, which makes it clear that the Government are founding their arguments on a series of propositions, one of which is that no significant effect on the viability of sub-post offices is to be expected from the changes. The Minister of State clearly stated that the Post Office had been consulted and did not expect any post offices to close. The Government seem to be committed to a national network of post offices. More people have bank accounts now, and it was clear from the Minister's letter that automated credit transfer provides more choice—that is the objective set out in the citizens charter. According to the Government, it is a more secure method of payment and it will save money.
Will the change threaten the sub-post offices in any way? In my submission, it will, at least superficially. The Minister of State at the Department of Social Security does not admit to understanding the structure or finance of the post office network. There are 20,000 post offices, but only 1,000 of them are owned and run by the Post Office as Crown offices. The rest are run as agencies by sub-postmasters, who generally combine their post office activity with a retail business. Sub-postmasters undertake 70 per cent. of all business transacted across post office counters, so the vast bulk of the Post Office's work is conducted in that way.
According to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, services provided by the state—driving and television licences, and so on—account for more than 70 per cent. of all business. The work done for the Benefits Agency represents 34 per cent. of that work. The Government do not seem to allow for the fact that the future of rural offices is directly linked to the future of the urban offices, because the Post Office negotiates an overall fee with the Benefits Agency which it then redistributes to the sub-postmasters. The money is not distributed evenly; larger urban post offices are paid less per transaction than are the small, mainly rural, offices. The smaller offices are paid almost eight times as much. That cross-subsidy ensures that the rural network survives.
Any action which threatens the urban post offices will directly or indirectly threaten the viability of the rural network. If the size of the cake is reduced, there will be pressure to change the payment ratio and to pay urban offices more because that is likely to be seen as a way of preserving the maximum number of offices, and the rural offices will be at greatest risk of closure. If the ratio is unchanged, a reduction in benefit transactions will clearly cost rural offices more per head.
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters takes the view that any action that reduces the urban network will threaten the viability of the rural network, making it even more difficult to maintain it. I have consulted the Post Office on this matter. It takes the view that benefits payments in post offices act as a magnet for the customers who make the private business of the sub-postmasters viable. Thirteen million people visit post offices every week in connection with benefits payments. That represents nearly half the total number of Post Office customers. If the Government succeed in encouraging a large slice of Post Office business to move to banks, the continuing viability of thousands of post offices will be undermined.
The Post Office's view contradicts the Minister's letter, which claimed that the viability of post offices would not be directly undermined. That might mean that the Post Office does not think that any of its own 1,000 Crown offices will close. Five per cent. of the network will be safe thereby, but it would help if the Government explained their statement that they do not believe that the viability of the post office will be undermined by this change.
The closure of post offices in small communities obviously has a knock-on effect on the whole local economy. If people have to travel to the nearest town to withdraw cash, it is likely that they will spend their cash there, thereby removing that cash from the local economy.
Will the change benefit the customer? The Government claim that the citizens charter, and all that it brings in its train, is motivated by a desire to offer greater convenience to the customer, as well as by savings. The Government claim that the increased use of automated credit transfer


means more choice. The problem is that if increased use of ACT results in fewer post offices, that will present benefit recipients with less choice and convenience.
How are recipients in rural areas to obtain cash? They will have to travel to the nearest branch of their bank, which will nearly always be farther away than their local post office. Many of the people forced to do that will be pensioners and mothers with small children.
The reduction in the number of rural post offices comes at the same time as a rapid reduction in the number of bank branches. The latest available figures show that sub-post office closures in 1991–92 totalled 288—nearly one every working day. However, that rate was surpassed by the number of bank closures. In 1990, 304 local bank branches closed—again, one nearly every working day. In 1991, 664 closed—nearly two every working day. In the first six months of 1992, 542 bank branches closed—nearly 3.5 every working day.

Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman is right about that, surely the effect will be to strengthen sub-post offices. If there are fewer banks, more business will go to them.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am talking about communities that are 20 miles from the nearest bank. Bank closures might increase the distance to 40 miles.

Mr. Needham: Exactly.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister can develop that point in his own speech.
Most banks envisage further cuts and closures—and most of them will occur in smaller communities. If those closures are compounded by the closure of rural post offices, customer service will be substantially cut.
Increased automated credit transfer could lead to more inconvenience in other respects. Many sub-post offices are the only shop in their community. Those businesses are already under threat, for reasons that I explained earlier. If they go bust because of increased ACT, that will hardly improve convenience. The front page of yesterday's Daily Mirror reported that the village shop in the Prime Minister's own village has gone bust, with debts of more than £150,000. Mr. and Mrs. Doug Belcher in Great Stukeley, near Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire, have quite a lot to say about the economic situation in the Prime Minister's constituency. I thought that was a very apposite report in the context of this debate. If the Prime Minister cannot save small village shops in his own constituency, what hope is there for the rest of us in the current economic climate?
Another sector to lose out in convenience terms will be mothers. At present, they collect child benefit from post offices, but in the absence of a local post office, they will be forced to switch to automated credit transfer. When that happens, there is less of a guarantee that the benefit will be used for the correct purpose. If a mother has a joint bank account or must receive the money via her partner, she could lose the valuable direct control over her child benefit that the current systems offer.
Also, a great deal of information about benefits and other Government services is distributed via local post offices. How will the Government replace that facility? Will they pay the banks to do that work, or for large-scale advertising or direct mailings to those whom they think need the information? Or will they not supply the information?
The Minister of State's letter mentioned reducing the time that people spend queueing in post offices. First research shows that 90 per cent. of post office customers are served within three minutes; secondly, and perhaps more important, many people whose benefits are paid by automated credit transfer will still have to queue to withdraw cash at their banks. According to the September issue of the Consumers Association's magazine Which?, independent research has shown that queueing times in post offices are shorter than those in banks and building societies.
How much could the Government save through the new technique? At present, 95 per cent. of benefits are paid by order book or giro through the post office and 5 per cent. by automated credit transfer. Use of ACT is increasing as more new recipients opt for it. It offers three methods of saving. First, savings can be achieved by combining the payment of different sorts of benefit that may be going to the same recipient. Secondly—I do not underrate the importance of this—the incidence of fraud can be reduced, because fewer cash order books can he stolen. I know that the DSS worries about fraud, and it is right to do so.
Thirdly, ACT payments are made four or 12 weeks in arrears rather than weekly in advance, like giro payments. That last saving is clearly made at the cost of claimants, who will lose five or 13 weeks' use of their money, depending on which system they choose. According to an article that I read on, I think, 25 September, payment in arrears is already saving the Government some £40 million a year.
Other Departments' responsibilities overlap those of the DSS: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is an example. A series of Departments are involved in supporting the rural economy, and they must address a number of important questions. New uncertainties have arisen as a result of the benefit uprating statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security. The two questions that I am asked most often are "Who is the new policy supposed to benefit—the Treasury or the recipient?" and "How will the Government fund their commitment to the national network if they are to remove some of the income that they provide?"
I think that the answer to the first question is that the Treasury will gain: a significant increase in ACT will certainly result in less choice and convenience for the customer, and in damage to rural economies in particular. Only the Government can answer the second question, the Minister of State's letter to me of 11 December states categorically:
The Government remain committed to a nationwide network of post offices in which rural sub-post offices will continue to play a very important part.

Mr. Needham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against the customer's being able to use ACT if he chooses?

Mr. Kirkwood: No, I am not. I think that savings are important, and that the DSS is right to examine the possibility of developing this system of payment. I am merely saying that the Government do not seem to be giving proper consideration to the consequences of such a policy. Of course I am in favour of extending choice—and the Minister of State's research seems to suggest that that will be the trend in future. The Government must understand, however, that they cannot make such savings


without striking at the potential future viability of the rural sub-post office network. That is why I felt it necessary to initiate this debate.
The Government will have to examine the situation closely. They owe the House assurances about the future viability of rural post offices. We need to hear not just that the Government are committed to such post offices but how they propose to sustain them financially.
We need assurances, too, that the research to which the Minister referred in his letter to me of 11 December will be carried out and published. The research findings must be reported to the House, and if Benefits Agency staff are setting targets for signing people up to automated credit transfer, we must be told what those targets are. We also need to know whether post offices will be able to sell national lottery tickets.
The Government must make public statements on a whole series of matters to alleviate the uncertainty among the ranks of those who run sub-post offices in particular. If they do not do that, the Post Office will find it more and more difficult to replace staff who at present are working for next to nothing, whose businesses are unprofitable and who are in effect providing a local public service. The staff are committed to the work that they do, day in, day out, often being denied the public holidays that other people can expect to enjoy. The Government owe those people a statement that will make them more confident that they have a future. Many of them are committed to the service that they provide, but they are not prepared to provide it and go bust like Mr. and Mrs. Belcher in Huntingdon. The people who provide that service and who do valuable work from which we can all benefit deserve far more support and consideration from the Government than they seem to be enjoying at present.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) because he and I share an enthusiasm for community village life. As the House will know, the focal point of the modern village—the epicentre of the community—is the post office. There we celebrate our triumphs and there we mourn our losses, as my hon. Friend and I are mourning a loss today.
We are concerned at the remorseless removal of the service from many rural areas. For that reason, my colleagues in Cornwall and I undertook a comprehensive survey of the sub-post offices just two years ago, in 1990. It was the first of its kind, although since then a number of authoritative surveys by the Rural Development Commission, Action with Communities in Rural England and others have taken place.
Our survey produced some remarkable results. For example, we found that 42 per cent. of the owners of sub-post offices were thinking of giving up, frequently citing the combined effects of the uniform business rate and the poll tax as their reason. Of those who had a general retail store alongside the post office, more than half—56 per cent.—were thinking of giving up.
Since then, the uniform business rate has increased—in some cases quite dramatically. Depending on whether someone was taking over an existing business or maintaining a business, those changes could be quite

devastating to the viability of the business. Throughout the following 12 months, my colleagues and I worked with the present chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, to try to persuade Ministers that the rural sub-post office was not a conventional profit-making commercial enterprise and should therefore be given special treatment. Sir Bryan thought that he had obtained a concession or exemption for very small post offices—those which were situated in private domestic residences, those which did not have major structural changes to the buildings in which they were placed, and those which did not have a general store alongside. Sadly, after months of negotiation, the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), wrote to say that he could
see no case for waiving the payment of rates by rural post offices".
Such was the effect of that announcement on the viability of a great number of sub-post offices that my colleagues and I decided to undertake a second survey—this time one that was more concentrated but in more depth—within my constituency of North Cornwall.
In December 1991, I visited a large number of post offices. At that time, there were 72 sub-post offices in my constituency. I suspect that my hon. Friend and I have that unusually large number in common, too, as we have scattered rural communities in our constituencies. Of those, 68 were able to give me detailed information on their circumstances and four were very dependent on seasonal holiday trade or were otherwise unable to give reliable data. Two thirds—67·6 per cent.—had a general store alongside for the hamlet, the village or the part of the town that they served. Thirty five—three quarters of those that had a general store—had the only retail facility serving the people in the area.
One must bear in mind that in that part of the country the average distance to the next retail outlet is at least two miles. Of the people served by those offices, just under 16,000 were retirement pensioners who relied on those sub-post offices to collect their pensions and a further 6,000 were obtaining various other benefits and allowances.
At that moment, the average uniform business rate was about £900. For most, it was expected to rise to £1,000. Despite the moratorium on UBR, of course, there have been rises, and since then it has increased much more. Since the original 1990 survey in that one area of Cornwall, four sub-post offices have closed, leaving their communities without that service and with considerable distances to cover. In each case, the UBR was cited as the last straw that broke the camel's back. In two other cases there have been closures for other reasons, but the majority of closures were a direct result of the totally unrealistic level of UBR.
There is also the difficult problem of community hours. The Post Office has been seeking to restrict a number of sub-post offices to community hours—that is, a reduced service on the ground that that is all that can be justified in a certain village, hamlet or suburb. The effect of that is unfortunate because it is totally unremunerative to sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses to run a community hours service. Of course, they are under pressure from their customers to try to maintain a wider, longer and more substantial service. If they do so, they do it, in effect, at their own risk.
Obviously, neither survey involved precise scientific samples—they could not—but we have every reason to believe that they were nationally representative. Hon. Members will recognise the problem for being a general one.
I will give one or two specific examples to bring the figures up to date. In the past week or so, I have been in touch with several post offices. I refer to Higher Bore street, in the town of Bodmin, at the top end of the range in my constituency. More than 1,000 pensioners draw their weekly pension from that post office, which is a large one in comparison with others in rural areas. Even that post office has felt the dramatic impact of recent changes. Not only does it face a huge UBR bill, which will increase again next April, but it has suffered a reduction in business as a direct result of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred. That town happens to be home to a large number of elderly people who receive a pension from the national health service—they were employed at the large local hospital —and the health authority is currently persuading all its pensioners to transfer their pensions to bank accounts so that no pensions are paid over the counter.
That gives the lie to the Minister's suggestion that it is a matter of choice. For many pensioners, there will be no choice—they will he forced to use a bank. I accept that there are banks in Bodmin, so that will not cause too many difficulties, but at the top end of my constituency the sub-postmistress at Wainhouse Corner near Bude told me that the nearest bank is 13 miles away. Who can travel such a distance without private transport? In the scattered rural community which focuses on Wainhouse Corner there are some 190 old-age pensioners.
At the lower end of my constituency, the sub-postmistress at St. Issey, Mrs. Grubb, told me that she has 87 old-age pensioners, 39 child benefit claimants, seven invalidity benefit claimants and eight people drawing unemployment benefit, which is less than the local unemployment average. I happen to know that community very well and that sub-post office offers a highly prized service. It is having to cope with difficult circumstances. The nearest town which offers a bank and other services is about six miles away. That post office also offers an additional necessary retail outlet which, if lost, would never be replaced.
What is to be done? We must try to maintain, encourage, endorse, strengthen and support the sub-post office network. The current policy of taking services away from rural post offices must be reversed. Rural services should be concentrated on such post offices and they should be properly remunerated for providing them. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has already referred to services such as social security payments and I have referred to the payment of pensions from previously nationalised services and industries—hon. Members may wish to cite other examples.
We believe that other new services should be concentrated at post offices. The licensing of vehicles is now permitted at a small number of rural sub-post offices and my hon. Friend and I know of no reason why that service should not he extended to other such post offices. Those post offices also seem the natural place for insurance services to be offered through a national network. There is no reason why the Giro system should not be used as the national back-up service for the provision of insurance advice and agency services in villages. In rural areas the

operation of the national lottery, should it be introduced —there are differing views about that—should rest exclusively and properly with the sub-post offices.
The principal issue, and the one on which we look to the Government for leadership, is relief from the UBR. There is no logic in imposing the UBR on that part of the premises which is used exclusively for post office purposes. No one can pretend that a rural office, particularly if it only operates community hours, represents a commercial service which makes a profit. Those post offices provide an uncommercial, social service. It would be simple to isolate that part of the premises which is used for the sub-post office and to exempt it from the UBR.
Alongside that UBR, an unrealistic valuation is often made of the retail business which sits cheek by jowl with the post office. The UBR valuation system is extraordinarily anachronistic and takes little account of the commercial viability of a business. The calculation of an area is a false criterion on which to base a financial calculation. Worst of all in an area such as the south-west, no regard is paid to seasonal variations.
Anyone who lives in a village—I am not sure whether the Minister does—must know that if a sub-post office network did not exist the Government would have to invent one to provide the facilities, services and information back-up that any sensible Government must provide for its citizens, whether there is a citizens charter or not. Although the majority of Conservative Members tend to represent cities and suburban constituencies, they must understand that rural areas deserve and need this network of services.
It is unusual for us to be working at 5·45 am, but for many people in the Post Office—in Crown offices, sorting offices, on the road or in sub-post offices—it is a normal working hour, especially in the run-up to Christmas. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that we should be debating the problems faced by this great national public service. We should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the service, which all too often we take for granted. As someone said to me outside the village post office in St. Issey, near Wadebridge and the Camel estuary in the most beautiful constituency in the country, "If we take it for granted, it will be taken away."

Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on choosing this topic. It was a pity that we were not given the benefit of a little tour of Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I should have enjoyed a trip around the Whiteadder and Blackadder, which might have been appropriate to this hour of the morning.
The problems to which the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) drew attention are not confined to rural areas. It is worth reminding ourselves that the subject chosen for the debate was simply sub-post offices, not exclusively rural sub-post offices. Many of the problems to which they drew attention—the uniform business rate, the training, recruitment and remuneration of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and floating the so-called community post office, with its limited hours and equally limited remuneration—apply to urban areas. I take slight issue


with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, because he should not assume that all urban post offices are large. Many are small and offer a village-style service.
We should bear it in mind that we are debating a substantial business. The sub-post office network—I exclude the Crown post offices—has some 19,000 or 20,000 outlets. It is as extensive as the entire network of banks and building societies combined. It employs some 40,000 people in addition to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. It is a substantial employer. Some 7 per cent. of the business of Post Office Counters Limited is done through the sub-post office network.
The hon. Members who have spoken have correctly pointed out that the Government have no choice about that network of services, if they are to take their pledge of a universal post office service obligation seriously. While there will always remain a proportion of benefit users who choose to receive their benefits in cash, the Government must be committed to the present network or something very much like it. It would be nice if the Minister would assure us that that is indeed the case—that we can expect a network of approximately the present size to be a permanent feature of the Post Office Counters system.
We must now explore some of the difficulties caused by the Government's policy towards the Post Office, and the limitations on the development of post office services that make the object far more difficult to achieve.
I shall refer briefly to payments of benefits—a matter which perhaps occupied too much of the two speeches that we have heard so far. Because of the limitations of technology, benefit customers are faced with the choice of receiving their payments either automatically through the bank or in cash through a post office. We should look forward to a time when people will be able to choose to have a proportion of their benefit—which they will be able to determine—paid in cash, and the rest paid through the bank. Through the introduction of smart cards—and perhaps the installation of smart card points in the Post Office Counters network—that could be achieved, and it would mean full flexibility and real freedom of choice between payment in cash and payment through the bank. That is one of the ways in which we could seek to develop the Post Office Counters network services.
The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for North Cornwall were right to refer to the fact that the internal finances of the Post Office provide for a substantial cross-subsidy to the sub-post office network—about £25 million a year. In an article in the Financial Times last week the chief executive of the Post Office said that under a system of pure market forces there would be a substantial reduction in the Post Office Counters network, especially in the number of small sub-post offices. The internal cross-subsidy in the present financing arrangements floats the present large network of sub-post offices.
It would be of advantage if the Government would assure us that, whatever proposals they may make for the Post Office, that necessary cross-subsidy will still be available to the Post Office—or to whatever organisation is operating post office services. If the future finances of the Post Office were structured so as to make that

cross-subsidy impossible, there would be a serious problem, leading to a collapse of the network. We would all be most concerned about that.
We should look towards a considerable development of the business potential locked up in the Post Office Counters network. With an extension of legal powers—or even without one—it would be possible to introduce a new range of services. The national lottery has been mentioned, and the sale of various tickets. It would be nice to think that if the Government are shortly to arrange the sale of a further tranche of British Telecom shares, some of them could be marketed through the network, perhaps on an experimental basis. If the Government truly believe in share-owning democracy, it would be perfectly appropriate for them to use the Post Office Counters network as a method by which to extend dealing in shares.
It would also be helpful if modern telecommunication points were opened in post offices so that electronic mail systems and fax systems were widely available in rural and urban areas that might not otherwise benefit from them. Expensive services, now only available to people in their homes or through a limited commercial network, could be available universally.
The Post Office Users National Council has expressed grave concern about the future of the sub-post office network. It has referred to rumours of another 1,000 closures of post offices in addition to the previous 1,000 closures of sub-post offices which we have seen over the past four years. That would be grave news indeed.
We are all concerned about the sudden hike in the Post Office's external financing limit projected over the next three years in which, not content with having taken a profit—that may not be quite what it is, but let us call it a profit—of £750 million out of the Post Office over the past seven years, the Government now propose to take £500 million out of the Post Office over the next three years. There is no doubt that meeting such a stiff external financing limit will put many of the current financial arrangements now operated by the Post Office under considerable strain. It is important to have an assurance that, however that external financing limit is to be achieved, it will not be achieved at the price of a collapse or of a substantial reduction in the network of Post Office Counters services.
The investment programme that the Post Office proposes, in extending modern automatic cash-handling systems to about one third of the Post Office Counters network, to be achieved over three years, again would greatly increase the scope of the business that sub-post offices could undertake and would greatly add to their potential as deliverers of financial insurance services along the lines described by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
All these are matters which could be seriously put at risk by privatisation. It could lead to a disintegration of the organisation of the Post Office. It could lead to a further raising of the external financing limit through the taking of profit and it could also put at risk the cross-subsidy system inside the Post Office's financing arrangements which floats the present substantial network of sub-post offices.
All of us want not simply to retain the existing network of Post Office Counters and the 19,000 sub-post offices, but to use the network of 19,000 contact points for the community greatly to expand the range of services, both public and private, that are provided. We look forward to the Minister's reply on that point.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I also congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his success in getting the topic debated. If I do not congratulate him on the time, I am sure that he will understand. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that we were undertaking work. I am not sure that all those who work in sub-post offices would agree that listening to one another is actually work.
To fill in the hon. Member for North Cornwall on my own background, I tell him that I was brought up in Budock Water, which is not far from his constituency. I moved to Broadwindsor, then to Newton Poppleford and then to Somerford Keynes, so I have some vague idea about village life, if not in the constituency of Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the very smallest post offices and the uniform business rate. As I understand it, the Inland Revenue has already agreed to exempt those post offices. I listened to the hon. Member very closely and with considerable interest—

Mr. Tyler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Needham: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head; that is a fact. I listened to his comments about the UBR with great interest. There was no mention in the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats or of the Labour party of a commitment to a nationwide network of post offices.
The policy of the hon. Member for North Cornwall may have changed; the Liberal Democrat change their policies fairly regularly. However, at the time of the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, their policy was for an annual revaluation. If anything is going to undermine and damage the small business sector, not including the smallest post offices, it is the concept of allowing Labour or Liberal Democrat-controlled councils to set whatever UBR they like. I can think of nothing more horrific for the consequences to local businesses than to allow the UBR to be determined by local councils.
One need only consider the wish to free up the UBR—and that was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—to allow it to be settled by local councils to realise the effect and damage that that would have on local post offices and other small businesses.

Mr. Tyler: I have fought a case on behalf of a small post office against the UBR valuation. It is clear that the Minister's statement that exemption has been conceded by the Revenue is simply not true. It is impossible for many post offices, even for those that fall within the qualification of being in a domestic premises, without a major structural change or a general store alongside, to obtain an exemption. The security needs of a post office require that there is at least a permanent allocation of space to a post office counter. In those circumstances, the concession is totally meaningless.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is obviously well aware of the fact that the UBR is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Nevertheless, as I understand it, the Revenue has agreed to exempt the very smallest part-time post offices; I can write to the hon. Gentleman about that. However, that does not alter the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not responded to my

point about his policy on the UBR as a whole, the annual revaluation and the effect of allowing local authorities to determine the UBR.
Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall responds to that point, he had better be careful about this. He and I know that there would be a substantial increase in the UBR. It would not be uniform; instead, it would be a business rate to small business people. That is where the charge would lie for the spending plans which the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his colleagues, as they constantly remind us, would like to increase.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister is very gracious to give way a second time and I am grateful to him. If he has read our manifesto—as he obviously has—and our detailed policy documents, he will have read that we support the complete exemption of sub-post offices from UBR as a social service to the community. From his careful reading of our policy papers, the Minister will also recognise that we are in favour of more generous central Government support to enable the UBR to be paid at a lower level.

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of an even higher public sector borrowing requirement than the Labour party. Furthermore, if the hon. Gentleman wants to find exemptions for sub-post offices, the money will have to come from other business premises. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the shop in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—which, by the way, is not a post office—would have made the position even more difficult. However, at this hour of the morning, I do not want to antagonise or provoke anyone. Nothing could be further from my mind.
There are many areas of agreement on the matter and I will try to reassure hon. Members because we all accept the need for as much of a nationwide network of urban and rural post offices as we can achieve. Sub-post offices are the backbone of the counters network and the 19,000 to 20,000 offices serve a large majority of the 28 million customers who use counters every week. As I said, we made a commitment in our manifesto to the nationwide network. Such a commitment was not so clearly stated in the manifestos of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party.
Whatever solution we adopt for the Post Office and its constituent parts, whether in the public or private sector, we will ensure that the nationwide network is secure. That does not mean that we can guarantee that every post office will stay open for ever. Much as I should prefer that to be the case, for personal reasons and reasons of upbringing, the precise number and location of offices change with the shift in population and the changes in the requirements of clients and customers. We have accepted that the question of choice and what people are entitled to is important. But our commitment, as stated in the Post Office legislation, is to maintain a readily accessible network which fully satisfies the social, industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom.
The main concern of the hon. Member for North Cornwall—I accept that his concern is genuine—is in the future of the rural sub-post office. There are more than 8,000 rural sub-post offices. As the hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out, the sub-post offices in far-flung rural areas—and, I am glad to say, the one which I represent —still maintain a vital role not only in paying benefits but


as a point of local contact. Rural sub-post offices are also crucial places to which people can go to shop when they do not have transport. Many sub-postmasters provide an essential part of the economic infrastructure of local business communities. As we all agree, many of them run the only shop in the village.
The Post Office fully accepts its responsibility to those communities. Changes in rural life, transport patterns and so on have, inevitably, made a number of village shops uneconomic. The shop in my own village became uneconomic. The economic viability of some village shops depends to some extent on how far the village is from the nearest town. Regrettably, some sub-post offices have closed as a result.
Hon. Members have said that the Post Office, together with the Rural Development Commission and other such bodies, is giving advice on display and lay-out and how to diversify in imaginative ways to make sub-post offices more viable. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) mentioned fax machines. Fax machines as well as estate agencies, dry cleaning facilities, tourist information offices or whatever is appropriate are being installed in sub-post offices. Recently, Post Office Counters Ltd, together with the Rural Development Commission, ran a series of training seminars to serve as an induction package for new village sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. The hon. Gentleman raised some interesting ideas. At a time when the matter is under review, I am sure that his ideas will be considered.
Recently, Post Office Counters have been inventive in finding ways to keep facilities running in areas in which the sub-postmaster has retired and we have not been able to find a replacement. In the past four years, the Post Office has opened 1,600 community offices which operate limited hours. There is such an office in the Swan with Two Necks which is in Pendleton in Lancashire, in a Portakabin in Whitson in the constituency of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and in various annexes to village halls. When the village post office in Croglin, Cumbria closed, it was difficult to find a replacement. Eventually, a community office was placed in the local toy manufacturer. Croglin Toys agreed to operate a community post office from the front of the factory for two days a week.
That spirit of innovation is necessary if we are to keep the services going. We all agree that the services are highly valued by local communities, but their viability is marginal unless they are combined with other local facilities. If the Post Office, local authorities and other providers of public services continue to act in that spirit, I am sure that this valuable part of our rural heritage will be saved. I make the point again and again that we are committed to a nation wide network. The cross-subsidy from the larger post offices to the smaller units will and should continue. Of course, that is right.
The point about automated credit transfer is an important element in the debate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has expressed his anxiety about it and continues to do so whatever letters or replies he receives. I am sure that he will continue to express his anxiety about it long after I have sat down. As he says, ACT has been available for the payment of pension and child benefit—the majority of all benefit transactions—for many years. There is nothing new in that. It has recently

been made available for other benefits such as family credit and disability living allowance. We were right in the citizens charter to commit ourselves to extending that method of payment to recipients of other benefits, if they wish.
There is nothing new about encouraging recipients to use ACT. We do not expect to see any sudden decline in the use of sub-post offices for the collection of benefits. The hon. Gentleman quoted the letter of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to him. My right hon. Friend said that the Post Office had said that it did not expect any decline either. The hon. Gentleman also quoted the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. However, we have been told by the Post Office that no decline in the use of sub-post offices for the collection of benefits is expected.
The number of people who ask to be paid by automated credit transfer has risen slowly and steadily over the years. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He sets the fox off; then he shoots the fox; then he sets the fox running again. I think that I am right in saying that the number of new beneficiaries who come into the pensions system each year is some 15 per cent. The hon. Gentleman reported from my right hon. Friend's letter that 70 per cent. already have a bank account. So clearly the upward trend will continue and people will want to make use of the ACT facility.
I could not be clear from what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said whether he was against people being allowed to use the facility, against encouraging them to use it, or did not want the Post Office to encourage them to use it. We are simply making more widely available an option which is secure for the client, cost efficient and, as the hon. Gentleman fairly admitted, involves a saving for the public purse. But we are not forcing people to use bank accounts if they do not wish to do so. We are not giving them a financial incentive to switch from one method to the other.
As the hon. Gentleman said, people may opt for ACT. He went on correctly to point out that bank branches are closing. If bank branches are closing everywhere, there will surely be more business about for the rural or urban sub-post offices. The giro may be a more effective way of doing things. I do not know whether my wife would be particularly pleased to have her personal dealings with the Post Office divulged in the House of Commons at 13 minutes past six in the morning, but her view is clear. She does not want to cash her child benefit through the bank. She certainly does not want to put it through any joint bank account with me. How right she is in that respect.
So there will always be people who, for good and sound personal reasons, will want to continue to use the system as it is. But, equally, there will be others who will want to switch to ACT. We must then consider the total volume of business at post offices. I also accept that many people value highly their regular visits to the post office to collect their pension or child benefit. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire rightly said, in rural communities the nearest bank may be many miles away. So I have no doubt that for those reasons alone people will continue to prefer the rural post office to the bank. I repeat that we are not taking that option away.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked what forms of encouragement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security intends to use to increase the uptake of ACT. I understand that he will


simply improve information to benefit recipients about the availability and the advantages of ACT, and he will make it easier for new and existing customers to use that method for all types of benefit in due course, but no pensioner is being forced to accept it.
The issue needs to be put into perspective. The number of people—mainly pensioners—claiming benefit has increased at a greater rate in the past few years than the rate of take-up of automated payment mechanisms. During the past few years the Post Office has performed an increasing number of transactions on behalf of the Department of Social Security, in spite of the gradual increase in automated payments. By 1994–95, after the encouragement that the DSS will give to claimants to have their payments made by ACT, the DSS expects that the volume of payments made through post offices will be about the same as it is today.
I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, but he is considering the matter purely on the basis of those who decide to move to ACT, without taking into account the increasing number of new claimants. The evidence shows that even if more people move gradually to ACT, with a 15 per cent. addition each year, the DSS does not expect the volume of payments to decrease. That is why the Post Office made that point. That is the essence of this debate and it allows the hon. Gentleman to have his cake and eat it, which is what he has been asking for.

Mr. Kirkwood: I have listened carefully to the Minister and I understand his argument. However, demographic changes come and go. If research started to show that the financial viability of post offices would be affected substantially, would the Government accept that it was a part of their responsibility to make good that loss?

Mr. Needham: I do not accept the premise. The hon. Gentleman is again setting out his fox to shoot it when—judging by the evidence that the Government have—what is running is not a runner. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central mentioned new business. However we look at the issue in the long term, those of us who live in country areas have to accept that the rural sub-post office network has declined. That is why we have been discussing the 1,600 new community post offices, which have arrived because it has been impossible to keep village shops open.
In time, we shall have to consider what to do. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, new facilities are coming in, including the smart card. In many areas of Europe all

benefits are paid automatically, but we do not have that system; we do not want it and we will not have it. I suspect that demography will not eat away at the problem, but improvements in information technology, greater mobility and greater wealth will. We therefore come to the key issue of new business, which will offer the way forward.
The Post Office has had to face numerous apparently grave threats to its business, and we have mentioned the increased use of direct debits, and the wider availability of stamps in non-post office premises. Post Office Counters' turnover has grown steadily despite the predictions. During the past five years, automated credit transfer for benefit payments has taken root, but Post Office Counters' turnover has increased every year and is one third higher than it was five years ago. That is the most important point. It has happened partly because the Post Office has taken up new business and entered new markets. The Crown offices, for example, have successfully expanded into retailing a wide range of stationery and greeting cards, imaginatively building on their core business. We have also recently announced that the Post Office will be granted powers to bid for work on the national lottery. That could become a valuable new source of earnings for the Post Office, and particularly useful to sub-offices as a way of getting customers through the door.
I hope that I have dealt with the main points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked about the external financing limit. In recent years, the Post Office has been successful in increasing its turnover, service levels and returns. The contribution that it makes to the Government must take account of a range of factors, including the interests of customers and taxpayers. There is great pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement and a return of less than 4 per cent. of turnover is not over-exacting, given the enormous size and importance of the business.
To sum up, I wish to make two things clear. First, the Government and the Post Office value highly the service given by sub-postmasters throughout the country, in both urban and rural areas. That includes rural, small community and larger urban offices, all of which have a vital role to play. Secondly, we are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of offices, whether or not the Post Office remains in public ownership.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for giving me an opportunity to put the record straight and for a debate which, even at this hour of the morning, I hope sub-postmasters throughout the country will have found useful and reassuring.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Sir Keith Speed: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the debate. It will be a somewhat Kentish debate, judging by my hon. Friends in the Chamber. I am sure that the Minister will accept some of the criticisms that we shall make in the spirit in which they are made.
Over the past few years, history has shown us that a number of motor transport projects have lacked the political will to carry them through or suffered delays, ineptitude or incompetence. One thinks of the Maplin airport plan, the Heathrow rail link, crossrail and the Jubilee line, which is still being discussed. I submit, however, that the granddaddy of them all is the channel tunnel rail link.
When the new channel tunnel was announced a few years ago, it was decided that a link was not necessary. Then it was decided that it was necessary. Indeed, many of us who live in Kent and see the problems of Network SouthEast realise that to run a viable and complete international channel tunnel service of trains from London and other parts of the United Kingdom through to the continent on the existing Network SouthEast would, in a few years' time, soon lead to disaster.
First, it was said that we needed only one London terminal for the channel tunnel rail link. We then did an about-turn and said that we needed two: King's Cross and Waterloo. It now appears to be one again, because I am not sure about the status of King's Cross. That gives none of us grounds for confidence that people will arrive where they thought they had set out for.
Five years ago, it was clear that if Network SouthEast was to grow at 4 to 5 per cent., which was the incremental growth rate per year until the recent recession, the link was essential; many senior people in British Rail were saying that it would be essential to have it by the turn of the century. It was realised that, as well as being necessary to cope with the capacity problems on Network SouthEast, the line would be of considerable benefit to Kent commuters, which would obviously have a bearing on the way that it was financed.
Since then, the history of the project has bordered on high farce. Unfortunately, that high farce has caused major problems and uncertainty, not only for my constituents but for many others in Kent and south-east London. In 1988, there were four route options through different parts of Kent that joined just north of Folkestone. Some of the options went through housing estates which, apparently, were not on the maps that British Rail was using. I suspect that they were not on the maps used by the Department of Transport either—some of my hon. Friends know of that only too well.
There was much aggravation, consultation and discussion. I, and, I am sure, others of my hon. Friends representing Kent, had a difficult time. I experienced the worst time that I have known in my 24 years in Parliament. I personally received more than 3,000 letters. We were attending public meetings of 400 and 500 people and none of us—British Rail, the Department of Transport and the Government—appeared in a good light.
Eventually, after all that aggravation, we arrived on a likely route—the southerly approach into London. It was to pass up the existing line from Folkestone, through Ashford and my constituency, branching out along the

M20, through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), up through north Kent, to Waterloo and across the river, in through Essex, Stratford and the two terminals at King's Cross. Meanwhile, there was an abortive attempt to involve the private sector.
The consultants—the Ove Arup group—had been drawing up their own solution to the problem, as had a consortium called Rail Europe, based on the original Talis route. The Rail Europe proposal was for a line further to the east of the existing routes, approaching through Stratford into King's Cross through east London and Essex. I believe that that option was never properly evaluated. I know that both the Department and British Rail said that it was, but there was a strong feeling in my part of the world, and, I think in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, that it was not properly evaluated. Whatever the Minister, I or anybody else says, many of my constituents will take that view with them to their grave. That solution could have been a good one. It would certainly have been people-friendly.
We thought that we had found the final solution. My constituents, if not learning to love it, were learning to live with it. My 3,000 letters dropped to just a few letters every month, and I thought that all was in order. However, in October last year my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who was then the Secretary of State for Transport, announced in Blackpool at the Conservative party conference that the Ove Arup route through Stratford was to be selected, and the southern route, worked out by British Rail, was to be abandoned.
I believed then, and said so—I have heard nothing to change my mind—that the choice had more to do with the regeneration of the Thames corridor than international transport considerations. My right hon. and learned Friend told his audience in Blackpool, and I heard him—as did the world, because he was widely quoted:
We are ending the blight and the uncertainty.
At the beginning of this year, Union Railways, a new subsidiary formed by British Rail, was set up to redefine and bring forward the project. I believe—my hon. Friend the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that the remit from the Department of Transport made it clear that cost savings were to be the main name of the game. It was put about that the Ove Arup route was only a concept, not a detailed line, although it had apparently been a fairly definitive route in October last year.
So it was back to the drawing board. Contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend had said, fresh blight and uncertainty had been created. Cost-cutting had a lot to do with it, I suspect. People in my part of the world say that the cost-cutting was in preparation for privatisation. I hope that that is untrue. I have reservations about privatisation. I should like to see a partnership between the Government, British Rail and the private sector—a partnership producing high-quality environmental protection.
Matters went from bad to worse. In July this year there were rumours of a new possible route through Kent. They remained rumours, because no consultation had been carried out with Members of Parliament, local councillors, the local business community or anyone else. There were some murky confidential meetings between the chief officers of one or two local councils and one or two council leaders, but there was no "consultation" in the sense that my hon. Friends and I understand that word.
Local people have some idea now of the options under consideration, thanks to the excellent investigative work of our local newspapers, particularly the Kentish Express, which has unearthed some interesting facts.
It appears that one option is the original route through Ashford, north through the town in a tunnel, up alongside the M20 to the area know as Charing heath, thence into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, on up through the north of Kent and eventually into King's Cross, having passed through parts of Essex and east London.
The favoured option, however, would apparently be completely different. It would abandon the tunnels—this is where the cost considerations come in—and run on the surface almost all the way. In Ashford, it would destroy the local golf club, and the new sewage works, which cost a great deal of money. It would run through one of the most attractive residential parts of the town, emerge alongside the M20 and somehow cross it to join the existing line down near Mersham. The line would also run further into north-west Kent, and it would cause more problems and uncertainties there.
Ashford has been appallingly blighted by all this. I have received letters from business people and other people thinking of moving to Ashford, asking me whether they should buy a house in the town and what will happen if they do. I have sent my hon. Friend the Minister copies of some of those letters. The truth is that neither he nor can answer them at the moment. If the line does come, we do not know which side of the M20 it will affect. Sale boards are going up again in my part of Kent, and the housing market is just beginning to revive—but not in Ashford, because the line's route is uncertain and no one in his right mind would buy a house knowing that in a few months' time it could be dramatically affected by the high-speed link.
The blight is also affecting what is probably the largest income-generating employer—potentially—in south-east Kent: Trinity College science park in Ashford. It has come to a grinding halt because the new surface line, which would bisect Ashford, would also mess up the science park, thereby destroying its huge potential for high-technology industries and local employment. My constituents are coming to the end of their tethers. They are punch drunk after so many years of "consultations". They had thought that the matter was settled, but they now find that they are unable to sell their houses—and the new route is not even protected for blight purposes.
I understand that Union Railways intends to submit proposals to the Government within the next two weeks, and I strongly believe that the proposals and options should be published at that stage and placed in the public domain. I shall tell my hon. Friend the Minister why: it would end the blight, including that affecting the possible new surface route through the town. I cannot overstress—I am sure that hon. Friends representing other Kent constituencies can bear this out—the hardship, worry and concern being caused.
It is no use saying that early publication will cause blight, because the blight already exists. Once the proposals are published, at least the blight will be defined. We know of and have learnt to live with the route that passes alongside existing lines in Ashford. The possible new route is being imagined by different people in all parts of the town, although I think that the press has done a pretty good job of trying to define it. If the proposals are

published as soon as the Department receives them, at least that will eliminate large areas of blight. It seems impossible to get that through to the Government and to Ministers. I think that they cannot understand because the problem does not exist in their constituencies.
I also believe strongly in publication, because the proposals are bound to leak very quickly in garbled form. It is an unfortunate fact of life that Whitehall cannot be relied upon these days to keep confidences confidential. In this particular case, it should not do so anyway, because enough has leaked since last July.
Another important point that should be mentioned—although I do not set great store by it—is that the county council elections are to be held in May. I do not think that the high-speed rail link should be a matter of party political controversy. All parties in my part of the world want it, but it would be singularly unfortunate, to say the least, if the Government decided to publish the proposals in a few months' time, and became embroiled in the county council election campaign. That would not do anybody any good.
Another vital reason for quickly publishing the proposals is so that the consultation will be meaningful. If the Department, Ministers and Union Railways all want the consultation that they say that they want, it is no use the Government sitting on the proposals and causing a delay of three to six months, and then coming forward with their conclusions and saying, "We are now going out to consultation." There has been no consultation so far, and what will consultation be worth at that stage? Will it be consultation about the colour that the fences will be painted, or about whether a tree will be planted here or there? Clearly, it could not be substantial consultation on whether the route should go through tunnels for environmental reasons and on other matters of importance, including freight.
Ashford is already bisected by the main line, but we have lived with that for 120 years and can do so for another 120. If the Government's proposed route for Ashford is the new one alongside the A20, which would introduce an additional bisecting of the town and all the profound disadvantages that I listed—my constituents and I profoundly hope that will not be so—the Government, when they make their announcement, must also announce proposals for dealing with all those problems. Where is the golf course to go? Where is the new sewage works to go? What will be the compensation scheme for all the residential houses affected? What will happen to the Trinity College science park, which is vital to the balanced industrial growth of Ashford and south-east Kent?
Perhaps I have been a little rough so far. I do not mean to be offensive to my hon. Friend the Minister; in his dealings with me and those of my hon. Friends who represent other Kent constituencies, he has always been courteous and helpful and he has done his very best to assist us. He is, however, defending the indefensible if he is not prepared to publish details of the route at an early stage and to ensure that meaningful consultation takes place.
It has been publicly recorded within the past fortnight that my constituents have one of the worst rail services in the United Kingdom—the Kent coast line. I do not blame British Rail for that; I blame the lack of investment in rolling stock on the line. The Networker 471, which would have made an enormous difference to punctuality, reliability and comfort, was promised to my constituents


and those of my hon. Friends who represent south-east Kent: they were originally told that they would have it by 1993. I have maps upstairs, published by British Rail—presumably with the authority of the Department of Transport—which show that that was the plan. Alas, it now seems that the Networker will be at least five years late, appearing in 1997–98 at the earliest.
Over the past five years, my constituents have been subjected to numerous anxieties. All the consultations and statements on the channel tunnel rail link have been totally misleading and out of date, bearing no relation to the latest initiative. My hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal to try to promote Ashford international passenger station; it is now three-eighths funded, but is clearly unlikely to open before the international services start running. Even at this stage, local British Rail management appears doubtful about whether it can spend the money announced by my hon. Friend on signalling and track work. I feel that my constituents have a right to feel aggrieved.
What is the cost of the exercise? I wrote to my hon. Friend, who was unable to give me the figures; I have, however, ascertained them. The cost of the nugatory work done so far is as follows: £145 million for house purchase, offset by sales of £19 million. Interest on the money raised for expenditure currently stands at £66 million; on top of that are thousands of hours of management and senior management work. The total net cost is clearly in excess of £100 million—for nothing. We are now back to the drawing board.
For £100 million, we could have built the Ashford international passenger station and had £20 million left over for something else. Alternatively, we could have provided about 20 per cent. of the cost of the new Networker fleet. That would have been a substantial start. People in Kent are angry and shell shocked; they are asking for a say in decisions, and they want those decisions to be implemented properly and sensibly, so that the rail link will, at best, be only five or six years behind the comparable link that the French are to open next summer.
If the scheme is to be completed—I hope that it will be, although there is considerable doubt at present—it will need not only the work that is being done but a proper selection of the route and proper environmental protection. It must set European noise standards, rather than trailing behind with outdated standards that might have been adequate for the roads of 20 years ago but are not adequate for the new railways of today.
Before the ink dries on the Edinburgh summit agreement, let me put in a plea. Much of the cost of both the Ashford international passenger station and the link could be found from the £24 billion infrastructure economic funds that are to be provided by the private sector, the European investment bank and other Government sources. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister knows that the European investment bank financed the second Dartford tunnel some years ago: there is a good precedent. If this sort of money is now up for grabs among the 12 Community countries, we ought to put in a quick bid at an early stage. Both projects would be good for local people, good for employment and good for Kent and the United Kingdom, and I believe that they are vital for Europe.
On the channel tunnel rail link, we want publication now; we want consultation as soon as possible; we want the very best environmental protection; and we want early construction. It really is time to stop the shilly-shallying.

Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) has expressed admirably the sense of anger and frustration in his constituency over the handling of the channel tunnel rail link, and the sentiments that he has conveyed to the House are mirrored in that part of my constituency through which the rail link was at one stage designed to pass and which may conceivably still constitute one of the options now being considered by British Rail.
Let me start by giving a brief history of the link, up to the time of the announcement made by the then Secretary of State for Transport in October last year. Until that time, the channel tunnel rail link was formally designated from the channel tunnel portal up to Halting, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), and the extreme north-west section of the route passed through my constituency. It passed through the charming hamlet of Kit's Coty; then travelled west, very close to the village of Eccles; then passed immediately to the south of the village of Burham, going close to the primary school there; then went along a visually very intrusive viaduct over the Medway.
In addition, British Rail planned to construct, in the last remaining rural lung between the Maidstone area and the Medway area, a new commuter station—the so-called Mid-Kent Parkway station—which would have been environmentally extremely damaging to that part of my constituency, quite apart from the fact that it would have been wholly unserved by suitable access roads and would have caused heaven knows what traffic mayhem if it had been brought into use.
Those plans were scrapped, as we thought, by the then Secretary of State for Transport in his announcement of 9 October last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, that announcement was originally made in very clear and precise terms. At that time, a formal map was issued by the Department of Transport, in which the clear line of the so-called Ove Arup route was designated. That line travelled partly over land and partly in tunnel. Its route was confirmed as far as Detling, although it was made clear that there was further work to be done in determining the route beyond Detling. The line was none the less set out in a formal Department of Transport map, which followed it all the way into London.
The new proposed line passed outside my constituency and—more significant—the Government had apparently accepted some of the central environmental arguments advanced by the Ove Arup team and had made the crucial decision that the line was to pass in tunnel under the north downs rather than travelling along the surface. That news was greeted with delight by my constituents—a delight which was added to just under a month later when, on 5 November last, the then Secretary of State issued directions cancelling the previous directions that he had made safeguarding the area of the line from Detling to Hailing, which was now clearly redundant. The Secretary of State quite properly removed the blighting effect that his directions in 1990 had created. The position in my area is very similar to what was described by my hon. Friend the


Member for Ashford. The Government having established a clear position with the announcement of last October, as this year has progressed the position has become more and more muddied, more and more uncertain, with the blight becoming ever more maximised.
Of course, I accept that, if one is going to carry out public transport infrastructure projects, it is inescapable that blight will follow the publication proposals, but blight is an immensely damaging factor. In human terms, it is incredibly distressing. It makes it impossible for people to sell their homes, it causes them enormous worry and anxiety and it tends to be of long duration.
What I find quite intolerable about the present position in my constituency—from what my hon. Friend has said, it is also taking place in his constituency—is that in 1990, several hundreds of my constituents were effectively formally blighted by the publication of the previous safeguarding orders designating the line between Detling and Halling. One year later, that blight was removed. One more year later, in 1992, it looks as though the blight will come back, with the endless circulation of rumours about alternative routes which British Rail is putting forward, possibly including going back to the very surface route between Detling and Halling, which the Government very clearly, in a statement to the House, scrapped in October last year.
It is quite intolerable to treat people in that way—to blight them one moment, to remove the blight the next moment and then possibly to put it back over them all over again. The Government must acknowledge that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, they are duty bound not merely to remove the blight but to honour previous undertakings. People who were previously blighted should not be reblighted all over again.
Perhaps British Rail is being driven by purely financial considerations, but that in itself is not acceptable. We have had many assurances from the Dispatch Box that British Rail would not be allowed to adopt a cut-price route. We have had many assurances that environmental considerations are not simply going to be set aside but taken into account. The pages of Hansard are littered with assurances that have been given by a succession of Ministers to that effect. For example, on 7 November 1988, referring to the British Rail board, the then Minister of Public Transport, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:
I do expect the board to be extremely sensitive to environmental concerns".—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 69.]
Another previous Secretary of State for Transport, now Lord Parkinson, said:
We recognise that there are special problems in Kent, and we must protect the environment."—[Official Report, 14 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 490.]
The then Secretary of State for Transport, the present Secretary of State for Defence, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), said:
I entirely understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that the environmental implications for his constituents are properly taken into account."—[Official Report. 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 32.]
This year, the present Secretary of State for Transport, in a letter to me, gave me the assurance that British Rail is
applying environmental standards comparable to those for other major infrastructure projects.
That is just a short selection from an endless range of assurances from Ministers that the environmental

protection of Kent will be paramount and that the Government accept that the necessary costs will have to be borne to ensure that environmental protection is achieved.
It is absolutely essential that the Government continue to tell British Rail that they will not accept a cut-price job. Basic environmental obligations must be met in Kent. That county is trying to hang on to its considerable and, in some areas, remarkable rural qualities. In those areas with large populations, people must be properly protected from noise and visual disturbance.
The critical requirement for the area of line that passes through my part of Kent is that the ministerial undertaking that we believe that we were given, and which was amply demonstrated on the map issued by the Department of Transport in October last year—that the line will pass through the north downs in tunnel—is adhered to. If there is any question of the Government reneging on that, the Minister will face absolutely determined opposition from me and others throughout the passage of any subsequent Bill that comes before the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is very difficult to remain calm when one is so frustrated and angered. I should like to begin, however, by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) that one is at issue with the issue and not at issue with my hon. Friend the Minister, who has always behaved with great courtesy and consideration to us all.
As Christmas is approaching I thought that I might begin by trying to lighten the early hour with a modified Christmas carol:
In their first Euro effort, British Rail gave to Kent the promise of no railway, but a blight trail across the county,
In their second Euro effort, British Rail gave to Kent four rail routes and a blight trail across the county,
In their third Euro effort, British Rail gave to Kent a line on greaseproof paper, four rail routes and a blight trail across the county,
In their fourth Euro effort, British Rail gave to Kent an international station, a line on greaseproof paper, half a rail route and a blight trail across the county,
In their fifth Euro effort, British Rail gave to Kent no international station, a line through the north downs, a station at King's Cross and a blight trail across the county,
In their sixth Euro effort, Ministers gave to Kent an international station, no line through the north downs, no station at King's Cross, a new freight line and a blight trail across the county,
In their seventh Euro effort, Ministers gave to Kent an international station, no line through the north downs, no station at King's Cross, many route options, no freight line and a blight trail across the county,
In their final Euro effort, will Ministers give to Kent an international station, a line through the north downs, a station at King's Cross, consultation on the route, a real freight line and the end of blight across the county?
It is sad that, yet again, the debate is being conducted among Kentish Members only—with the exception of the gallant hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who is sitting on the Opposition Benches. The proposal relates to the development of part of the infrastructure that will affect all the United Kingdom. It is a great shame that it seems almost impossible to engage consistently the attention of hon. Members from other parts of the country to examine exactly what is being proposed and what needs to be done to make our infrastructure satisfactory for the next century.
I want to discuss freight, blight and consultation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), perhaps the most forceful of the Secretaries of State who have declared support for the transfer of freight from road to rail, said that it was the Government's intention to instigate such a transfer. Even in the time since he left that post—transport certainly seems to be the best way of transferring Secretaries of State from A to B, even if the Department experiences difficulty in moving freight from A to B—there has been an appalling haemorrhage of freight from the railway. Last week, Castle Cement announced that it will send 210,000 tonnes of cement by road. The week before, Blue Circle transferred half a million tonnes from rail to road. In the same week, British Rail refused to carry 75,000 tonnes of oil on its Highland line. We know that by the end of 1993 a substantial number of major companies that send freight by rail will have been priced off the railway, with the result that remaining users will face higher costs. Why have they taken these decisions? It is because in the depth of a massive recession, British Rail has increased the price on some pathways by more than 100 per cent. That smacks of exploitation of monopoly power.
British Rail has a habbit of responding to falling traffic by raising prices. It has happened to our commuters and it is now happening with increasing speed to freight. We know that the chairman of British Rail believes that rail freight has no future because he said so in public. Is it really the Government's intention to kill it? If not, why do they not change the rules?
For example, can my hon. Friend the Minister give any idea how much additional cost falls on the Government from 7 million extra lorry movements a year? The present policy flies in the face of Government assertions that freight should switch from road to rail, in the face of Kent county council's policy and in the face of the policy of local councils in Kent. There is an urgent need for a rethink on freight. It would be a mistake of massive proportions for the United Kingdom to accept Euro-money to build a passenger line while setting its face against similar support for freight.
I believe that the social, environmental and, eventually, commercial benefits of carrying freight by rail justify some short-term changes in Government policy.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I agree with every word that the hon. Member is saying, but is it his understanding, as it is mine, that British Rail is still bound by financial objectives laid down by the Government in December 1989, which oblige it, even in this time of recession, to seek an 8 per cent. return on investment on whole train freight, whereas road haulage would be happy to get perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. to get the business? Should not the rules be urgently changed and BR told that they have been changed?

Mr. Rowe: I am urging a change in Government policy, without which rail freight will cease to exist. The enormous expenditure incurred in creating freight villages will become a meaningless gesture. It would be rather like the legs of Ozymandias standing in the north of England.
It is vital that we seriously rethink how we finance freight. I shall give one example of the need to look to the future.
In recent years the controls on lorry drivers' hours have been considerably tightened, and there is every probability that over the next 20 years they will become tighter still, as will controls on lorry pollution. If that changes the economics of taking freight by lorry, there must be a sensible and viable alternative—as there is in every other European country.
As things are going at present, there will be no capacity left to handle the opportunities that the channel tunnel makes available. There is no doubt that, if present circumstances continue, the scenario that I remember sketching out in the House about four years ago will come to pass. There will be huge freight terminals in Frence to allow freight to be transferred from the trains that have carried it through the whole of Europe on to lorries, so that those lorries can come through the tunnel and rumble through the roads of Kent—in clear opposition, I repeat, to the wishes of every level of local government in Kent.
That will not do, I seek a clear assurance that there will be a change in the Government's perspective on the matter. Specifically, how meaningful is their commitment to a freight capacity on the channel tunnel rail link? Lord Goschen said in another place:
we have great plans to carry freight from the Channel Tunnel on the high speed link.
However, he had previously said:
British Rail has stated that existing lines have sufficient capacity for freight traffic well into the next century"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 1992; Vol. 540, c. 954–55.]
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he is genuinely certain that the British Rail proposal, with its gradients, passing loops and curves, can create a genuine freight capacity on a line that BR wants to use primarily for passengers. There is clear evidence that the mixing of high-speed freight trains and high-speed passenger trains is difficult to achieve, and I believe that there is serious doubt whether British Rail will be able satisfactorily to carry any meaningful quantity of freight on the route chosen, which runs through villages such as Harrietsham, in my constituency.
We need a genuine assurance. I know that the Minister wants the line to be able to carry freight, because he has often told me so, but I want him to be certain that British Rail, with its indifference to freight, is not pulling the wool over his eyes to secure a line such as it has always wanted—purely for passengers.
I shall refer briefly to blight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has set out the argument well, supporting the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I add only that the blight caused by the project has been even greater than that caused by all the other current major infrastructure projects in Kent—and we know how many of them there are.
There are two principal reasons for that. The first is that British Rail had no skill or experience in handling such a matter. Its handling of public concern was clumsy to the point of shame. There was maximum confrontation with the public and minimum consultation. BR took no advice, nor did it listen to anyone. It was clear from an early stage that it had no serious intention of modifying its favourite proposal, and it is still cross that the Government made the route go east of London.
The second reason was the fact that BR hugely underestimated the intelligence, knowledge, commitment and hard work of the public affected. Large numbers of


people in Kent now know an enormous amount about where the line could go, and about gradients, locomotives and curves. In spite of all that, BR has tried to pretend that it can minimise blight by keeping its plans secret. Of course, the opposite is true. The flood of rumour and counter-rumour has made matters far worse.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling both said, the Government lifted safeguarding in terms which gave some people, including constituents of mine, a clear assurance that they were no longer on the route. That has proved to be a complete myth. I am glad to say that the ombudsman has accepted two examples of blight for investigation.
The most famous example is the Oak Hive estate in my constituency which was originally not noticed by British Rail when it first put its line across the map. British Rail then bought every house on the estate in compensation for its incompetence. Goodness knows what British Rail paid for the estate at the height of the market. When the safeguarding was lifted, BR gave instructions for the houses to be sold.
Two or three houses were sold before, about a month later, the Nationwide Anglia property agency, totally scrupulously, decided that it had to put a map of the original proposal, which was all that BR would let it have, on the wall because it became clear that the lifting of safeguarding meant nothing at all. We now have British Rail blighting its own houses yet again on an estate where it has already behaved disgracefully.
Fourthly, the massive increase in freight along the existing lines has blighted properties along them as well. How long will it be before construction on those lines starts? There is the possible scenario of people being blighted from now well into the next century. The misery of that would be intolerable.
I urge the Government to publish the proposals when they receive them, or very soon afterwards. Publication will not increase blight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, it could not. Blight is universal anywhere near the line; it is unshakeable and it is soundly based.
The people of Kent and Essex are not stupid. They know where the options are likely to go. Designing a railway is not like putting in houses. Designing a railway is subject to strict parameters. Once one knows where some parts of the railway are, one knows that the rest is bound to go in one of two or three places. People are not stupid; they know that. Even if Union Railways sometimes behaves as if people were stupid, I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that they are not. Most of the people I know in the action groups up and down the line and all their friends could draw a perfectly good set of options on the map which would look very similar to British Rail's options. I could not support more strongly the case for publication put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford.
It is nonsense to suggest that there will be real consultation after the line has been chosen. The people along the route, who have done so much work and who have so many ideas to contribute, deserve to be allowed to make that contribution. I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that there will be much greater anger and much greater public hostility if people feel that whatever they say will make no substantial difference to the outcome It is

not enough to ask people to comment on where the trees should be planted. They need to be consulted about matters such as where the stations might be.
It is interesting that Kent county council, Rochester upon Medway city council, Ashford council, Maidstone council and Tonbridge and Malling council are all in favour of publication when the Government receive the plan from Union Railways.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: This debate is opportune, given that we are about to head for yet another hurdle in this long and sorry saga. It is significant and should be noted that, despite the very early hour of the morning, many Kent Members are here to defend their constituents.
I cannot help but feel that this debate on the channel tunnel rail link has all the hallmarks of competing with "The Mousetrap". It goes on, and on, and on. It is now four years since British Rail first sprung the high-speed rail link route upon the people of Istead Rise and New Barn in my constituency. That caused major upset and public meetings of 700 very concerned residents who saw their only major asset—their homes—blighted and their value undermined.
The latest corridor, the so-called Ove Arup alongside the A2, lifts the blight on the people of Istead Rise and New Barn, but imposes it on people from Pepper Hill in Northfleet along Watling street to Hever farm in Gravesend. They are all very densely populated areas.
I note that BR, in its new guise of Union Railways, is doing a thorough job. Nevertheless, that thorough job is causing great anxiety. The message from the people of Northfleet and Gravesend to BR, Union Railways and the Government is simple: sink the link. Clearly, people in my part of the world did not want the link. However, if it has to be, if it is in the national interest and if it has to be in the corridor concerned, then environmental protection must be the order of the day. To achieve that environmental protection in my constituency, the line should be dropped vertically.
Originally, the Ove Arup plan was for a 30 ft high embankment opposite Northfleet. That is clearly unacceptable opposite a densely populated area. The line should be dropped to a very low level, preferably with cutting and covering and, in any event, shielding the urban area from noise.
Although those people already have noise from the A2, that noise dies away at night. If action is to be taken to get freight onto the line, which we are assured will happen, that freight is likely to move at night and that movement will be accompanied by noise. Therefore, abatement of noise by dropping the level of the line is absolutely essential to ensure that the lives of thousands of my constituents in Northfleet and Gravesend are not made intolerable.
The other point of concern in my constituency relates to the parish of Cobham. The crossing of the Medway by the high-speed rail link remains a matter of uncertainty. Ove Arup's original proposal had the link crossing the river flush with the M2 bridge. Later plans from Union Railways show the crossing being south of Cuxton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).
The danger of despoliation of one of the most beautiful and historical parishes in Kent—the parish of Cobham—is clear. That must be considered by the planners. Union Railways must carefully consult environmental and heritage interests on its plans as they cross that parish.
The plans to date show that the passage across Gravesham remains south of the A2 line. Any suggestion of crossing to the north of the line within the borough of Gravesham would cause major problems by hitting the densely populated urban area. I take it that the statements made to date by Union Railways that it has no plans to cross the A2 line in Gravesham remain inviolate. I hope that the company will stick by those undertakings.
The A2 line east-west across Gravesham is a powerful boundary for the green belt between urban north and rural south. That line has been held firmly now for decades and the success of green-belt policy is clear. However, Union Railways must not see an opportunity to spread itself across the green belt adjacent to the urban area. Union Railways may see unbuilt land on a map as white. We see it as green and we fully intend to defend it. That is why I strongly discourage any passing loops in that area.
Nevertheless, there are rail transport opportunities in this area. People in north-west Kent rely on the old North Kent line to commute to London. The line was built in the 19th century to cheap specifications, and it is no longer adequate for the weight of thousands of daily commuters that it must carry.
The Government have taken steps to relieve the terrible conditions under which our commuters must travel by authorising construction of the Networker 465. British Rail, in its inimitable style, together with the companies that it uses to construct these vehicles, has caused delays on the introduction of the Networkers 465. I saw the first Networker 465 arrive in Gravesend only a fortnight ago. It seems that many months will pass before the vehicles are properly introduced. The Government should be congratulated on introducing the Networkers in Kent.
If we are going to have a high-speed rail link through this area, and if commuter facilities are to be developed with an interchange station or junction between Northfleet and Swanscombe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), combined with fast links with the urban areas of Gravesend and Northfleet, there will be some compensation for my constituents from the proposed environmental impact. Indeed, we will enter the 21st century in terms of transport provision for my constituents.
The year 1993 will be fateful. The people in Kent wish to have an announcement that combines environmental protection with new rail transport opportunities. I expect the Government to honour the environmental undertakings referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), which have been given time and again. The whole proposal is a tall order. It must have essential pre-conditions, and I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in achieving them.

Mr. Roger Gale: First, I must apologise to my hon. Friends for missing the start of the debate. I was detained in the small hours of the morning by a constituency problem, which I have been dealing with ever since.

Mr. Don Dixon: The hon. Member was in bed!

Mr. Gale: I was not in bed. Because of that problem, I missed the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), but I heard the rest of the debate.
I know that I speak for all of my colleagues in east Kent when I say that we support the belief of our friends in mid-Kent that the fast link is needed, that decisions must be taken, and that the programme must receive the necessary investment to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion swiftly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) forcefully said that it is time that we got the freight off Kent's road and on to the railways. That is vital. The roads in Kent from the ports of Ramsgate and Dover are saturated with heavy and dangerous traffic. Heavy lorries are breaking up Kent's roads and using country and side roads as rat runs to an intolerable and unacceptable level.
Let me give the House two examples. Only yesterday the M2 in the Chatham area was blocked for many hours while the police removed the wreckage of a lorry which had crashed through the central reservation. I was told that there was a 15-mile tailback on the coast-bound road, and I experienced a seven-mile tailback on the London-bound side of the motorway.
It is only a few days since my friend Anthony Garrett, who will be known to many hon. Members, was driving to his home just south of Ashford. He was pushed off the road by a German lorry. The lorry drove into the back of his car and pushed him through the central reservation. It is a miracle that he escaped with his life. His car was a complete write-off. The lorry did not stop; it was heading for the ports in a hurry. Those are simply two instances in the past 10 days of what is commonplace in Kent. It is time that we got the traffic off the roads and got it where it belongs—on the railways.
It would not be a debate about railways in Kent if I did not mention the Kent coast line. This is a debate about the channel tunnel link. Those of us who serve constituencies in north-east Kent look to the channel tunnel fast link as one of the means of speeding traffic from north-east Kent into central London. We believe that the time will come when our commuters will benefit from that and will be able to experience the faster, more comfortable journey to which we believe that they are entitled.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know only too well that just last week British Rail was compelled to recognise that the Kent coast line was the worst line in the Network SouthEast empire. It is the only line in the entire region on which people have had to receive a discount from British Rail under the charter because of its miserable performance in timekeeping.
I believe strongly that the rail link and especially that part of the rail link that will be needed to carry freight must receive, preferably from private sources, the necessary investment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make certain that any investment in the fast


link is at the cost of the vital improvements that must be carried out urgently to meet the needs of the commuters on the Kent coast line.

Mr. Brian Wilson: There is a convenient natural link here. I was pleased to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) just as the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was talking about the Kent coast line. Conservative Members will remember with gratitude that my hon. Friend proposed using the Kent coast line as the model for a leasing project which would relieve them of all the worries with which they are unfortunately still burdened. Now that their Front-Bench team has somewhat timorously arrived at the view that leasing is not some far-fetched flight of socialist fancy, I am sure that they will all press for my hon. Friend's proposals to be implemented.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) on initiating the debate. I am the only geographic outsider who has sat through it. It has otherwise been entirely men of Kent—[Interruption.] I am sorry—apart from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), a Government Whip. I have found the debate extremely interesting. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that the link is not a local Kent issue but a national one. It is one of the big infrastructure decisions which must be taken. It affects the whole country.
It will be something of a national embarrassment when the tunnel opens and high-speed trains come thundering across the continent and through the tunnel and arrive on a British Rail network when we are still thinking about where the route should go to carry high-speed trains direct even as far as London. The idea that we should have done anything about links north of London is so far-fetched that it does not even need to be contemplated at present. Presumably, the Government will get around to thinking about that at some time in the early decades of the next century.
Having caught up with some of the arguments in the debate, I find that the way in which the story has unfolded, even since last October, is astonishing. I have great sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Members who have spoken this evening. They must have thought, as I and any reasonable person did, that the Government were, at least on the surface, announcing some sort of decision last October. There was a great action-man exercise. We were given to understand that a decision had been taken. We saw television shots of street parties. We understood that something was to happen and that in other places it would not happen.
A clear-cut picture had supposedly emerged. I caught up with that story recently. No decision was made last October except a decision to give the false impression of a decision. People who thought that relief had been brought to them found that, in the words of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, they had been reblighted by the question being opened again in respect of their homes and areas. That is a grotesque injustice which is intolerable by any standards, but it will continue unless we have a decision.
Not only is the channel tunnel link called into question, but there is also the question of the method by which we

go about arriving at major infrastructural decisions. We do not seem to get any of them right. They drag on for years, while we discuss routes and methods of funding. Strategic decisions cannot be taken within a reasonable time, or by a process that respects democracy and the national need for decisions to be taken so that we can get on with projects that are in the economic interest.
The idea that one is doing anyone a favour by prolonging uncertainty is false. As the hon. Member for Ashford said, people can live with a decision once it is taken, but they cannot live with uncertainty which seems to be removed and is then reimposed yet again.
A decision should have been taken long ago. The route should have been chosen, the means of funding it should have been defined and we should now be looking towards the opening of the tunnel, in the confidence that the project had been undertaken here in exactly the same way that it was undertaken in France.
The hon. Member for Ashford and I have made several visits to the tunnel and to the infrastructure on the other side of the channel. The French Government probably thought it a bit eccentric that the tunnel was to be built on a private enterprise basis, but, once they had accepted that, they obviously had to come in behind it. The channel tunnel and the approaches to it were treated as a national project, which clearly offered tremendous economic potential for the Pas de Calais area. It was to become the engine of economic regeneration. The private sector worked with the public sector, and investment was made available as strategic decisions were taken. The project was seen to have enormous potential as an engine for training people in various skills and they got on with it. The testimony to it is there and is fitting into place.
It is half-past seven in the morning, five years after we started talking about a fast rail link for the short distance between London and the tunnel, and this is as far as we have got. I do not think that one has to be politically partisan to measure the two approaches and to decide which has served national interests better.
In spite of the welcoming words of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent, I do not think that Conservative Members want to hear anything at great length from me. It is perfectly reasonable for time to be left for a comprehensive reply from the Minister—a reply which I also want to hear.
I strongly endorse the claim by the hon. Member for Ashford and his colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Kent that the Union Railways report should be published in full. Coincidentally, a written question of mine on that subject was answered yesterday. The answer made it clear that the report would not be published in full, but it suggested that some filleted version of that report would be published within a relatively short time. I do not think that most of the people represented by hon. Members here would regard that as adequate. People have the right to know, in full, what is going on, the arguments underlying any decision and where we go from here.
I cannot conclude without referring to freight. Several Conservative Members have made heartfelt pleas for the movement of freight from road to rail and that is obviously relevant to the debate. Conservative Members must realise—they cannot deceive their constituents on this point—that everything that the Government are doing, as opposed to what they are paying lip service to, is operating in precisely the opposite direction. Freight is being driven from rails to road at an astonishing rate and that will continue unless there is a definite change in policy.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent to make a distinction clear. I do not think that there was any disagreement, but he said that the chairman of British Rail saw no future for rail freight. It is only fair to the chairman of British Rail to point out that he was reflecting not a desire on his or British Rail's part but the reality of the moves leading up to privatisation.
I understand—I should be delighted to be corrected—that British Rail's objectives are still governed by the statement made by the now Lord Parkinson in December 1989, which laid down the financial objective of an 8 per cent. return on investment for whole train freight. Rail freight is being asked to compete on that basis at a time of recession, when most businesses are happy to get 1 or 2 per cent. However misguided it might be, that conditions the pricing policy of rail freight. At the same time, the Select Committee has been hearing day after day from every witness that has come before it that if freight is asked to accept more of the burden of infrastructural costs, the only consequence can be to drive freight off the rails and on to the roads. Those are the realities.
I shall not prolong my comments now, but let there be no doubt that any Conservative Member who has been piously, and doubtless sincerely, saying this morning that we must get more freight on to rail should know that he cannot go along with that policy and at the same time support privatisation, which is the main driving force in precisely the opposite direction. Nobody can avoid that conclusion.
This has been an extremely useful and interesting debate. Along with hon. Members from Kent, I now await with interest some answers from the Minister. I have some sympathy with the Minister. Secretaries of State come and go, but he always seems to be there, trailing along behind them with a bucket.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am sorry if the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) thinks that I trail behind Secretaries of State with a bucket of cold water.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I point out that my hon. Friend the Minister trailed to Lancaster yesterday to show how well our rail line would do out of privatisation?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that we shall see an early improvement to the infrastructure on the west coast main line, as I made plain to her yesterday when I visited Carlisle, Lancaster and Preston.
The debate has been sombre but important and I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) for reminding me of the great importance of ensuring that we build the channel tunnel link with maximum environmental protection and as speedily as possible. I accept that squaring those two difficult and sometimes conflicting pressures is ultimately the Government's responsibility.
When I approach that matter, I often seem to be treading on a sea of broken glass in the county of Kent. It is extremely difficult and I accept the need to move judiciously but firmly in completing the project. However, it is difficult in a country which, compared with northern France, has a high density of population, outstanding areas of countryside and many villages and historic towns which must be protected. I sometimes wish that I held the position of my opposite number in France, where Abbeville, Lille, Amiens and Fréthun are anxious to have the rail link through their municipalities. It must be different in Kent because of the need to protect the environment.
I do not have much time, so I shall deal briefly with the issue of freight and the Kent coast lines and then respond to the substantive matters relating to the rail link. Rail freight distribution loses a considerable sum of money—more than £100 million—so there is no question of British Rail meeting its financial objectives this year or next year. The freight that is being lost from the railways at present—a fact which I regret—does not make any contribution to the infrastructure costs. It is not meeting its marginal operational costs.
When the Government are informed by British Rail about the freight that it finds difficult to retain because the price increases are unacceptable to the customers, I do not accept British Rail's estimates of its above-track costs, but consider whether, even with substantial improvements in efficiency of operation, the freight would still not cover its marginal costs.
It would be difficult for some freight loads, which are hauled over relatively short distances in trains which are not full, to stay on the railway without direct subsidy. That is an important point of principle. There is a great opportunity for the rail freight industry to expand, but it must do so in the long-haul business, with full train loads. There is a great opportunity with the Channel tunnel to haul freight from the nine terminals which British Rail plans. In addition, when the private sector starts to construct new freight terminals throughout the country, the opportunities will expand.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced additional resources—£150 million—for the procurement of rolling stock. He has given permission for that rolling stock to be leased. He was able to do that because we have tabled our proposals for privatisation. British Rail is not the only operator of last resort—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may laugh, but that is the position. If we had not announced our proposals for privatisation, there would have been only one operator. There would have been no difference between British Rail offering to lease trains and its offering to buy them outright, as there was only one operator. [Interruption.] I am explaining to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East the prudent financial and accounting rules in this country. I hope that British Rail will soon be in a position to make a judgment on ordering new rolling stock. It is not a matter for me, but I know that the Kent coast services are being considered.
I shall now deal with the important issues of substance raised by my hon. Friends. I ackowledge that what has happened since the general election has spread blight. We intended that Union Railways would take advice from planning officers and some leading councillors in Kent on discharging its remit, which was to come back to Government by the end of the year, 31 December—which


it will do—with its considered judgment on how to build a railway line from Folkestone to King's Cross. Much of that work has already been achieved.
I well understand the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling when he says—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent—that he will totally oppose any suggestion except that of a tunnel through the north downs. No such proposals have been made to the Government. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford when he says that he opposes any suggestion that involves taking the route north of the town, not through a tunnel through the town centre.
Union Railways has sought to discharge its remit. There has apparently been some success in parts of Kent. I believe that, as a result of confidential conversations, some intelligent light has been shed on how best to take the railway line under the Thames at Dartford with minimum impact on the borough. That is an example of the common sense of allowing Union Railways to get on quietly with preparing the details for the Government to consider.
I appreciate that through leaks or investigative journalism some of this work has entered the public doman, causing blight. I regret that. I agree with my hon. Friends that when we receive the Union Railways report, and the WS Atkins report on the methodology, they should be promptly published. My hon. Friends all agree about the desirability of that—

Mr. Rowe: I do not agree that this has all been done by investigative journalism. A great deal of the blight has been caused by the replies from Union Railways. When asked whether a person's house is out of danger of blight, it has answered in highly equivocal terms which could only be interpreted as meaning that the house in question was not out of danger.

Mr. Freeman: I was trying to help my hon. Friend by acknowledging the problems. The Government need to resolve them as quickly as possible. I accept the necessity for early publication. That is in the interests of proper public consultation with all hon. Members who take an interest in the matter—

Mr. John Prescott: Will the Minister publish all the relevant facts?

Mr. Freeman: All relevant facts except those that are commercially confidential—the Government reserve the right not to publish those, but it is important nevertheless that as much as possible of the information that comes to us be published.
The report from WS Atkins will be published, too. Everyone should be in a position to know the costs and environmental implications of the various options that Union Railways will have considered. Ministers have not yet seen the report; it is still under consideration by the British Rail board: but I have been given firm assurances that it will reach Ministers by the end of the year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford will accept what I have said about publication.
The public consultation procedure may take many months. I undertake to talk to all hon. Members directly affected, in person and one by one. There will also be consultation with local authorities and interest groups. At the end of that, we should be able to safeguard a specific route all the way from Folkestone to King's Cross. Then the planning procedures can commence.
There are two ways forward: either a hybrid Bill or procedure under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The latter would be quite complicated, but it is an option. Once that procedure is completed, with the right finance construction can begin.
We want the private sector to play as big a role as possible in constructing and financing the link. I have no idea just how viable the link is. The Chancellor has said that he sees it as an example of public-private sector co-operation. It is important that commuters from the constituencies of my hon. Friends be able to use the link. We also remain committed to using the link to take as much freight off the roads of Kent as possible, and to relieve existing lines in Kent.
We shall examine carefully the extent to which the private sector can play a role in building the link. We want to involve it at an early stage so as to take the project forward.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister intend to seek access to the newly unleashed European structural funds?

Mr. Freeman: Any contribution from any Community source is welcome, but the participation of the European investment bank or any other source of European finance will not dramatically alter the viability of the scheme. It can help, however. The EIB helped with the second Severn crossing and the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, and I am sure that it will take part in any major transport infrastructural work in the future.
Addressing the key point, I acknowledge and regret very much that some blight has been created. It is important that we move on to the public consultation as quickly as possible. On behalf of the Government, I accept responsibility for accomplishing that.

Crime (Public Lighting)

Ms. Ann Coffey: This is an important debate because crime, the fear of crime, and possible solutions to the pervasive fear of crime are of great concern to a wide range of my constituents. Only a few weeks ago, shopkeepers in Davenport whose premises were being systematically burgled came to see me, to express their concern at the state of affairs. Even Heaton Moor Conservative Club wrote to me because its members were worried about that neighbourhood's crime level.
Elderly people regularly come to my surgery seeking increased security in their homes, and council tenants complain about being threatened and abused by gangs of marauding youths. Parents are worried about their children's safety, and women are afraid to go out at night. Such complaints are not unusual, and neither are they isolated.
I wrote to the Home Secretary to convey the concern felt by Stockport people about rising crime. I pointed out that in 1980 there were 15,606 reported crimes, but by 1991 the figure had risen to 35,235—a considerable increase. Among those crimes was an endless catalogue of increasing burglaries, car theft, vandalism and concern in the community.
About a month ago, the Home Secretary replied, saying that the Home Office was approving an additional 179 posts for Greater Manchester police, and that he hoped that I would be reassured. I was, slightly. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to me again two weeks later to say that, because of public expenditure cuts, there would be no extra posts.
The Stockport police force is under considerable stress, as are the police in other areas. Public expenditure cuts mean that the number of posts will not be increased and that can only worsen their difficulties and increase concern in the community about the ability of the police to cope with the ever-rising incidence of crime.
The police have to a large extent become a crisis force and, as a consequence, their preventive role in the community has much diminished. Police time must be prioritised. A sign of growing disorder in the community is the degree to which some crimes have become accepted as part and parcel of everyday life. It seems that if someone burgles a person's home and steals a television and video recorder, but does not cause any damage to the property, then, provided the householder is uninjured and his house contents are insured, there is no real problem.
That sort of crime cannot of course compare with some of the horrific incidents that make the news headlines. Neither do everyday occurrences of vandalism that involve wrecking buildings or slashing car tyres. Recently, a British Telecom exchange was set fire to, cutting off 700 lines. Such incidents have become so much a part of everyday life that people almost come to accept them—at least on the surface.
However, no one should underestimate the effect that such crimes have on the community or the cost to the individual victim. Feelings of invasion, insecurity, fear, and anxiety can linger for months, even years. One only has to ask our local victim support team, whose members spend a lot of time helping people to recover from the shock and trauma that are the consequences of being the victims of crime.
Those consequences cannot be measured only objectively, in terms of property being damaged or stolen—which tends to be the Home Office way of measuring problems. The consequences of crime go further. Every crime—every burglary and act of vandalism—sends further shock waves through the community. It increases the number of elderly people living alone who fret at night—sleeping fitfully, woken by every little noise, afraid of becoming a victim. It makes everyone more afraid in their homes and on the streets.
I shall not go into what I think has brought us to this sad and sorry state of affairs, except to say that if we create a society in which only the strong and successful are valued and status is reflected in material goods, while denying some people the opportunity of dignity, we destroy the very notion of community. The rising crime levels reflect the gradual disintegration of our community, and should be taken very seriously indeed.
Those rising crime levels also give rise to something else: the fear of crime that now pervades our community. No doubt the Minister will tell me that, statistically speaking, Stockport is quite a safe town—that, if we measure the number of assaults that take place on the streets or the number of serious injuries that are caused, the streets are quite safe. If he believes that those statistics make the town feel safe, however, the Minister is mistaken: people do not feel safe, and when they do not feel safe the fear oppresses their lives. Someone who does not go out at night because of fear of assault is as much a prisoner as someone who does not go out because they really will be assaulted. The fear of crime affects the quality of life as much as the incidence of crime.
Our streets are dark: they feel unsafe. The areas around our houses feel unsafe. Few people go out at night—certainly not women or the elderly. The streets become a no-go area after dark. Both crime and the fear of crime need to be tackled. I know that I cannot persuade the Minister to adopt some of the measures that I think would help to solve the problem in the long term, because they are essentially social measures, but I hope to win his support for improved street lighting, which has enormous benefits in decreasing crime and the fear of crime.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome one Government initiative, on car parking. Far too many towns and cities think that they can get away with providing just a piece of land, with no lighting or security. There is a pay and display machine ripping off the public. People are afraid to park there because of the lack of lighting and security.
The Government's initiative involves working with the police and local authorities to provide car parking security, with extra lighting, cameras and personnel to ensure that people feel safe about parking their cars, and ladies in particular feel safe about returning to their cars after parking late at night.

Ms. Coffey: Certainly I welcome any initiative that improves street lighting in car parks. The figures clearly demonstrate that improved lighting and other security measures in car parks not only diminish the incidence of car theft, but make people feel safer about returning to the cars at night.
I was about to produce evidence of the way in which improved street lighting has helped to reduce crime in certain areas—and, more important, has helped to lessen


the fear of crime. I also wish to mention some of the projects to improve street lighting and, subsequently, systematically to examine the effect of that improvement on the area concerned, in terms of crime and fear of crime. Such projects have been organised in a number of our major cities. In Hull, for instance, before the street lighting was improved the burglary rate was rising steeply. After the area was relit, the rate rose more slowly. There was also some evidence of a shift of burglary away from well-lit premises. Less theft and vandalism of cars occurred at night.
In another project area in Manchester, there were fewer reported burglaries, and they took place away from relit areas, which seems to suggest that the relighting of an area immediately acts as a deterrent to burglars.
In Strathclyde, there were substantial falls in the number of criminal and threatening incidents experienced by people.
The projects also had a great effect on the fear of crime. In Cardiff, 67 per cent. of people in a project area said that improved lighting made them feel safer in the streets around their homes. There were significant reductions in the worry felt by women about all types of crime—particularly burglary, attacks in the street and sexual assault.
In Hull, the proportion of women who avoided going out after dark fell from 38 to 7 per cent., and in Leeds, there was a 31 per cent. reduction in worry about having a car stolen or damaged. In Manchester, 54 per cent. of people felt safer in the streets and in their own homes. In Strathclyde, 32 per cent. said that there had been a reduction in the fear of crime.
The reduction in the fear of crime also affected people's behaviour. In Cardiff, the number of people willing to go out on their own at night increased by 26 per cent. In Hull, there was a 100 per cent. increase in the number of elderly pedestrians out at night. In Leeds, the number of women staying at home when they would have liked to go out at night fell from 34 to 7 per cent. In Manchester, there was an increase of 23 per cent. in the number of pedestrians on the street. In Strathclyde, there was a 75 per cent. increase in the number of women out on the streets between 10 pm and midnight.
The Home Office has been very dismissive of such statistics, feeling that the reaction was unscientific. But the findings, which followed relighting schemes in major cities and detailed survey work by academics from local universities and polytechnics, have shown that street lighting does, indeed, have an important effect on crime, the fear of crime and the quality of people's lives.
Some 65 to 70 per cent. of people regard fear of going out alone after dark as a problem. More than half deliberately avoid certain streets because of their fear. In a large 1960s council estate in Leeds, 95 per cent. of people believe that improved street lighting would be the most effective way to increase women's safety in the locality.
The Minister must listen to people's fears. They cannot be dismissed as irrational, even though they may be unscientific. He must listen because what people are saying makes sound common sense. The dark makes people afraid and, in the dark, criminals are encouraged to think that they can commit crimes without being caught. The dark keeps people in their own houses, and leaves the streets unsupervised by the community.
Those who go out only have their fears reinforced. The other night, I walked home from Finchley Road tube

station to my flat, which is about 10 minutes walk away. It was very dark. That is not something that I normally do: like most women, I avoid the streets at night. I do not know how many male Members can understand what it feels like to be a woman walking home at night. Perhaps I may tell them. If one walks down a street, one watches all the time. One looks for the safety of the next lamp post because in between lamp posts, the road is very dark. One does not walk too close to front gardens. One walks well away from bushes. One gets concerned about cars slowing down. If one hears footsteps behind one, one crosses the road so that one can see the person. Similarly, if one sees a man approaching, one crosses the road. One is alert all the time, and the street feels a dangerous place.
I have little doubt that, objectively speaking, that street was safe and that it was unlikely that I would be assaulted. But that statistic was of no benefit to me or to hundreds of women faced with a walk in the streets at night, who do not go out because they do not feel safe. The streets stay deserted and unsupervised, and the fear of crime takes its toll on people's lives.
In these days of public spending cuts, among other priorities, street lighting must take its place in councils' budgets. Given the demands on highway repairs and maintenance, there is realistically very little money for improved street lighting. The situation would be greatly helped if the Department of the Environment and the Home Office assumed some responsibility for street lighting. It would help if, for example, in setting housing investment programmes, councils could borrow for improved lighting. After all, long gone are the days when housing was viewed in terms of bricks and mortar. Environmental works, including the design of estates, are crucial. Local authorities should be encouraged to consider street lighting as part of their bids, because it undoubtedly enhances the quality of council estates in particular.
In the long term, a tremendous amount of money could be saved by paying such attention to street lighting. The high cost of vandalism would be reduced. There would also be a reduction in the time taken by housing officers trying to deal with council tenants' requests for transfers because they do not feel safe and protected on their estates.
The Home Office should also take some responsibility. After all, the Home Office is concerned with the prevention of crime, and part of the prevention of crime is helping people to feel free of the fear of crime. The success of policing policies can be measured only in decreasing crime statistics and people feeling that their community is safer. Local police forces, together with local authorities, could submit bids for capital allocation for lighting. That would enable the community, the police and the local council to work together in a genuine partnership to combat crime. People would regard that as a visible demonstration of concern for the community. Street lighting is not expensive when we compare the investment with the long-term rewards. It is immediately visible by the community, and that is important.
In our residential areas as well as in our town centres, a decent environment demands freedom from robbery and burglary, harassment and threats, freedom from anxiety and fear, and freedom to walk the streets at night. I fear that that will be a long time coming. It is difficult to rebuild what has been broken. It is difficult to rebuild the community in its present state of fear and a lack of trust.


However, some measures could be taken now to help to rebuild the process. One of those measures is improved street lighting, and we all could make a start.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey). I am pleased that she has raised this important issue. I am pleased also that my Member of Parliament is working hard at this time of the morning. Like my hon. Friend, I represent partly Stockport and partly Tameside. In both local communities, one of the saddest aspects is the number of lives that are disabled by the fear of going about one's normal daily life because of the possibility of crime.
My hon. Friend described how women are frightened to go out on to the streets at night. I fully understand that fear, but many men find themselves in a similarly difficult situation. In our society there is almost an assumption that men are not frightened to go out on to the streets at night. In many cases, no provision is made to assist men to go out. People will try to help women. They make sure that arrangements are made so that women can go to and from meetings with someone. Women try to make sure that they do not have to go out at night. Often, that assumption is not made in respect of men. The assumption is that they can happily go out. Many men go out fearing what will happen to them.
I am also concerned about the fears that are expressed by youngsters who go out and the way in which that relates to crime. One of the things that distress me is the number of times that I have come across parents who are worried because their son or, in some cases, their daughter goes out with an offensive weapon. Those parents insist—I believe them—that their child would no more dream of attacking someone with that weapon than do anything violent. Those youngsters do not feel safe unless they are carrying a knife or a piece of metal. The trouble is that if an incident occurs and the police are called, often the person who instigated the incident has disappeared, so the person found to be carrying an offensive weapon and arrested is the innocent young victim.
It is a sad day when we have created a society in which young people cannot go out at night and, I am afraid, at other times, without carrying something that may be termed an offensive weapon. If we could simply make our streets feel safer for young people, it would be easier to persuade them just how stupid it is to carry any sort of weapon.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem is not just the possibility of attack; one of the most disabling factors is the fear that that might happen. There is a great deal that the Government and local authorities could do to reduce that fear. Not long ago, I was canvassing in the evening on a council estate in my constituency during a recent-by-election. There was a time when one thought nothing of knocking on someone's door at 7 or 8 pm, in the dark, because people were only too happy to respond. It is a sad reflection on the times that my recent canvassing was not too popular, obviously because an increasing number of people are frightened to come to the door.
The first problem that I encountered in the street in which I was canvassing was when trying to read the street

name on the wall in poor street lighting. I looked down that street and I saw theoretically nice, landscaped areas with bushes. Sadly, those bushes were overgrown and I thought to myself that there might be someone lurking in them. It was just as difficult to walk down the street, while avoiding the dogs' dirt. That poorly lit street was uninviting. As soon as I opened the gate to a house, there was a burst of light from one of those lamps that light automatically when someone passes before them. The owner had installed that lamp because he realised that that lighting offered considerable advantages. Obviously, an unwelcome visitor would be discouraged by it.
Such public squalor and private affluence made an odd mix. All the way down the street I was in a gloom as I tried to pick my way along the street, but as soon as I approached an individual property I was treated to good illumination. It is sad that we cannot find that little bit of extra money for the provision of good street lighting to match that provided by an increasing number of house owners.
If the standard of lighting on our streets matched that provided by those home owners who can afford automatic lights, it would act as a major deterrent to crime and would reassure many of our constituents who are frightened to go out after they have heard about horrific crimes. Perhaps local authorities could consider whether it is necessary for street lights to be on all the time. I do not know the economics of such a decision and I do not know whether it would be more expensive to install lights that switch themselves on when people move in front of them rather than ones that are on all the time.
I notice that the authorities of the House have chosen lights that switch on as one walks along a Corridor. On a couple of Corridors, the lights are so designed that when one stumbles on the first step one's violent movement switches on the light. It might be easier if the light came on a bit quicker. Perhaps such lights offer a solution to the problem of lighting our side streets, but, whatever system is used, massive benefits result from good street lighting.
My hon. Friend referred to her feelings as she walked back from the tube station the other night. I have been walking back from the House of Commons for about 18 years at various times of night. Generally, I am not frightened to walk in the streets because there is high-quality lighting in most of central London. I walked through part of the City of London about 6 am, where most property has to be protected, and the quality of street lighting was marvellous. If the same lighting were available in parts of my constituency where people need to be protected, it would be a much better society in which to live.
I can think of a series of council bungalows that were designed in the 1950s and in almost every way are ideal for my constituents to live in. The only problem is returning to them late at night, because the porch is set back in a pocket of darkness. Anyone returning at night has to get from the street, which is not well lit, through the little pocket of darkness, put the key in the lock and get into the safety of his or her home. How much better it would be if the local authority could provide a light in the porch—preferably the sort of light that comes on as someone approaches the property. It would give pensioners the reassurance that there was not someone lurking in their porch trying to gain entry to their house.
The problem facing the local authority is finance. In one or two cases where they have been able to get money


to rewire a house, they have been unable to fit a light in the porch as an extra. It would make life better for many pensioners and other people if we could ensure good lighting on council property.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to car parking. It is worrying that so many car parks are badly lit. That encourages car crime and makes it very worrying for people to return to their car. One sees people looking around furtively as they approach their car to see whether it is safe. They then push the key in, looking around as they do so, and get into the car as quickly as possible. That is unsatisfactory and much better lighting would help. It is important to protect people who are able to travel in cars, but it is far more important to protect people who have to walk along streets.
I want to make a special plea about the way in which Stockport local authority has failed to meet the needs of my constituents. Stockport has a rigid policy for allocating school places. A group of constituents who live in the Station road area of north Reddish are forced to send their children to the Fir Tree primary school, which is situated across a piece of open ground about 300 or 400 yd from their houses. To get from the houses to the school by road, one must travel almost a mile and a half. During the day, it is perfectly easy for the children to walk across a footpath from the houses to the school, but at night the path is not lit, so for a couple of months of the year children have to come along the path at dusk or in the dark and anyone who wants to go back to school for a parents' evening or anything like that is forced to walk on an unlit path or travel around for a mile and a half.
When Stockport council insists on its rigid zoning policy for primary schools, I wish that someone would examine the problems that it creates. Two street lights on that footpath would make a tremendous difference, but Stockport says that council policy is to light only the highway, not public footpaths. That seems an especially mean policy. If the council insists that children go to that school rather than one slightly further away along a well-lit road, it should be prepared to provide the two street lights that would make such a difference.
I could give many more examples from my constituency of places in which improved street lighting would make a big difference. But I add one word of caution. Having raised the question of lighting during the election campaign, I was surprised when one of my constituents complained to me about what he called "light pollution". He was upset that his neighbours on both sides had lit up their entire back gardens to discourage crime. I do not know whether anyone has raised that issue with other hon. Members; I merely reflect that there is a danger that even when we press for better street lighting, someone—other than the criminals—will be disappointed.
I repeat the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport that if we want to fight crime effectively, the cheap solution is often to concentrate on prevention—and one of the best forms of prevention is to have well-lit streets.
It is ironic that in Greater Manchester a helicopter is now being used to pursue criminals, and I am told that one of the most useful things that it does is to light up areas with its searchlight. I realise that there is no prospect of street lighting in many of the areas in which the helicopter has to be used. Nevertheless, it is often used to light up a street that is supposedly already lit.
One of the things that I regret most is that during my time in the House I have seen a steady rise in crime. In 1979, when the Conservative party came to power, one of its election pledges had been the pledge to cut crime. We all know what has happened to crime levels. and to the level of fear among our constituents.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us more about the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned and the experiments that local authorities have carried out into using better street lighting to reduce crime, and the fear of crime. I hope, too, that he will give us more news about how we can have extra policemen on the beat in Greater Manchester. I agree with my hon. Friend that it was disappointing to be told first that Manchester was to have extra police and then that it was not. Well-lit streets, with extra policemen walking them, would be the best deterrent to crime in Denton, Reddish and the rest of my constituency.
I want the Minister not only to say that we shall have more policemen but to tell us what discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment to ensure that councils do not have to cut local provision. I suspect that street lighting has taken more of the cuts of recent years than have many other services.
Street lighting should be a priority. In areas such as Denton and Reddish there is still street lighting that was designed for the era of gas lamps, when someone came around on a bicycle to light the lamps and turn them out. Those lights no longer run on gas—they have been converted to electricity—but the level of lighting is still in what we could call the dark ages.
If the Government were prepared to give local authorities a little more money in their general allocations, it would be easier for them to put in extra street lighting and to improve the level of lighting. If local authorities were able to spend a little more from the housing allocations, it would be possible for them to light up many council estates, which were lit in the 1940s and 1950s on the basis of the contemporary level of crime. The crime rate has multiplied many times since. Much more lighting would be beneficial.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that we should be doing is pressing our own local authorities to prioritise some of the money that they already have for the provision of extra lighting? In far too many cases, local authorities spend their money on other things that the public may not consider to be priority areas.
There are examples in my constituency. The county council has lit up its own county hall, at a massive cost. It looks very nice aesthetically, but perhaps the money could have been spent better elsewhere. What guarantees can the hon. Gentleman give that if extra money were given to local authorities, they would spend it on lighting, rather than on other services, especially as they feel that it is easy to make cuts in areas such as street lighting because they think that those cuts will not be noticed?

Mr. Bennett: I trust local councillors to make decisions. One of the saddest things is that there are too many hon. Members who are prepared to say to local councillors, "We do not trust you to make decisions." In my constituency, whether in Tameside or in Stockport, if the local councils had the money, I have enough confidence in


my local electors to believe that they would ensure that their councillors delivered the service. The problem over the past 14 years has been that the councillors have been continually told that they cannot really be trusted with decisions and that they must be restricted in their spending. There is a cuts scenario. Councillors are not able to make positive decisions about expenditure.
I argue strongly that if the local authorities in my area were told firmly by the Government that they could have some more money to improve street lighting, they would get on with the job with enthusiasm. That would have a significant benefit in reducing crime and it would be very important in reducing people's fear of going out at night.
I am delighted to have had the opportunity to say a few words in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport on raising the issue. I shall listen with interest to find out what encouragement the Government can give us. I fear that, as so often in the House, I shall be disappointed.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I rise to make a few brief comments in this important debate. I am not at my most cogent, rational or coherent after the 26 hours on the go that many of us have faced, and I still have the prospect of the Scottish Grand Committee before me. I am comforted by the fact that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for industry, has suffered the same fate. That makes me feel a lot better.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) on securing this important debate. I especially wish to congratulate her on the depth of her research. When the speech is printed in Hansard, it will be a useful summary of the problems facing communities throughout Britain. Better street lighting would go a long way towards helping those communities.
There can be no doubt that crime is soaring all over the country. The crime issue is in the top half dozen issues that affect most people. When I speak to constituents, young and old alike, they tell me that crime deeply concerns them. All the statistics prove that over the past decade crime has soared at an ever-increasing rate and has left many victims in its wake. Action needs to be taken. The Government, as their record shows, have failed miserably so far.
I had a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) earlier today. He made the valid point that when the Government come to power, people were afraid to go out. Now that the Government have been in power for 13 years, people are also afraid to stay in. I do not say that simply in a jocular way. The reality is that many elderly people are afraid to go out on to the streets at night, partly because of the lack of lighting, but they are also afraid to stay at home because so many crimes occur at home these days.
Crime is a growth industry and there is no doubt that there are difficulties in respect of badly lit streets at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to a culture within which young people believe that it is necessary to carry offensive weapons. When I asked young people in my constituency why they carried offensive weapons which would

inevitably get them into trouble, the response was that others carried offensive weapons so they carried weapons for protection. That is no excuse at all and something must be done to break the vicious circle. Anything that would help would be welcome.

Dr. John Reid: My hon. Friend will be aware that just as there has been a growth in crime in his area in Paisley, there has been a similar growth in Lanarkshire. To what extent does my hon. Friend relate that increase to the lack of adequate street lighting and, in turn, to what extent is that related to cuts in public expenditure, under this Government, for the regional council?

Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Our constituencies faced similar problems during the summer recess, particularly in respect of violent crime.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) wanted to know whether local authorities were spending money on the wrong things and whether we should be putting pressure on them to make lighting a priority. Of course we should. We also put pressure on authorities to make the issues of disability, housing and the condition of our streets and pavements a priority. We always put pressure on local authorities and tell them to spend the same pot of money over and over again. At some point the Government will have to face the reality that that money cannot be spent time and time again. To argue as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has argued is nothing more than a con trick that cons no one.
Many of our constituents are afraid to go out. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) referred to problems in my constituency over the summer. The key division of Strathclyde police covers a population of about 200,000. So far this year there have been 12 murders in the area and that is a 1,100 per cent. increase over last year. That has worried the community greatly.
The detection rate for those murders is 100 per cent. and I want to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of the local police force. However, while, for understandable reasons, the police can never come out and say in public that they cannot cope, the reality is that they are so under-resourced that, in many situations, they cannot cope.
Many local authorities are, on the one hand, the police authority and, on the other, the local authority which has to decide on priorities—for example, whether to opt for street lighting which will help to reduce crime or to get more police back on the streets. The solution involves both those proposals, but the resources are not available to cope with the problem. The courts and gaols cannot cope with the increase in crime.
Although lighting is a very important problem, I hope that the Government will act as quickly as possible in relation to the extent of the presence of the drug Temazepam on the streets of Britain. I know that research into that problem is being carried out and I have had a meeting about that with the Minister in another place who is responsible for Scottish home affairs.
The problem with Temazepam is a national problem, not a local problem. Young people are dealing in what they call jellies which, when mixed with alcohol, can cause very violent side effects. As soon as the results of the research are available, I hope that the necessary action will be taken quickly. In the meantime I hope that the


Government will encourage general practitioners throughout the country not to prescribe the drug if another is available.
Strathclyde regional council made strenuous efforts over the summer to get extra police, but those resources will not be sufficient to tackle the real problems.
Many innovative schemes for street lighting can be developed. A scheme referred to earlier involved the use of heat-sensitive lights. From my days as a local councillor, I know that elderly people often demanded heat-sensitive lights. If they had such lights at the back and front doors, the lights would act as a deterrent if someone tried to intrude. If the lights came on, they warned the person in the home that someone was approaching.
The matter of lighting is not only for roading authorities; it is for housing authorities which are, of course, cash starved. I make that point because there is no way round the problem. The Government have no argument; it is a matter of resources. Local authorities know the job that needs to be done. They know that there are problems with lighting and a need for increased lighting and policing, but those things cannot be delivered without increased resources. This year, local authorites face cuts in public expenditure. How will they meet the competing demands?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport eloquently said that it would be sensible for the Government to look at the true economy of crime. Might not the cuts be false economies? If street lighting and policing are cut back, there is a cost further down the line which the public must pick up. It might have been better in the first place to invest money to prevent crime and people from becoming victims of it.
Many authorities are examining the development of closed circuit television, especially in town centres. The use of closed circuit television would be good in Strathclyde, but civil liberty questions are associated with it. In cases in which I know that closed circuit televisions have been used, they have been used sensitively, although no specific resources have been made available. Local authorities must put out the begging bowl to find the resources to implement the use of closed circuit television. Sometimes the private sector becomes more involved and sometimes it becomes less involved. However, such involvement is innovative and helps to solve the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport talked about the importance, not of people being safe in their homes and on the streets, but of feeling safe. That is an important factor because, even if the Minister were able to prove—which he cannot—that people are safer in their homes and on the streets than they were 10 years ago, we know that they are less safe. Even if the Minister could prove that they were more safe, that does not deal with the problem that they must feel safe. If elderly people do not feel safe in their homes, that is a problem.
I welcome this debate. The isssue of lighting and its relationship to crime is important. All sorts of other measures can be taken to reduce crime, although they deal with the symptoms. We must start to deal with the causes of crime. I would never say that anyone who is young and unemployed will inevitably follow a path of crime, because that is not true. Young, unemployed people with no prospects for the future have nothing to lose, and that is the reason why they stray into crime. Crime cannot be dissociated from the issues of lighting and poverty.
I welcome this debate because it deals with the issues. It will help, but essentially it deals with the symptoms of crime. At some stage we must deal with the causes of crime as well.

Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) on obtaining a debate on such an important topic. Perhaps it is appropriate that we should have been waiting through the early hours for the opportunity of debating the issue because many of our fellow citizens will have become victims of crime during those very hours of darkness. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) for their contributions. My hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) were also present taking an interest and showing the importance that they attach to the subject.
I pay tribute to the parliamentary lighting group, which has stimulated interest in the contribution that street lighting can make to both safety and crime prevention, and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who convinced me of the importance of the topic and recruited me to the membership of that group.
Good street lighting has implications for safety. It has implications for traffic safety. Those of us who travel out of the city of London on the M4 see that automatically, as we move from light to dark, back to light and into darkness again as we pass down that road. Street lighting has importance for the quality of life and for jobs in the lighting industry, something that is not to be sneezed at in the current state of the economy.
However, tonight we are concentrating on the way in which street lighting can help the fight against crime. I have been able to see the effects of good street lighting through a project in Tremorfa in my constituency. That is the Cardiff project to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport referred. From what constituents have said to me, I know that the project has been a success. One need only look at the images of the street before and after the installation of new lighting to see the difference.
More objective evidence has been provided by research conducted by Professor David Herbert and Dr. Laurence Moore of University college of Swansea. Street lighting is just one part of the environment in a residential area. One of the conclusions of the project, which in many ways is astonishing, was that the improvement of street lighting had an impact on the general attitude of residents. There are specific cases of improvement. Feelings of safety, a belief that there were fewer youths around the area and visibility are clear and quantifiable improvements.
The report on the research says:
But residents seemed willing to go beyond the obvious and to recognise a general upward movement in their quality of life. There may be two parts to this awareness of positive change. Firstly, improved street lighting is highly visible and obvious. Secondly, the installation of new lighting acts as an investment in the future of the estate.
That confidence and that recognition of the needs of the community is as important as the lighting that is provided.
Reactions to the improved lighting were all of a positive nature, but we need to build on that success rather than see lighting as an end in itself. Design of estates and the type of services that are provided also help to create that confidence. I recognise the emphasis that my hon. Friend


the Member for Stockport placed on the feeling of confidence. People feel safer and clearly welcome the change.
However, the report says:
improved lighting is only one part of a solution to improving the total environment and wellbeing of people in their neighbourhoods.
The Government, and the Minister in his reply, must recognise that. The Government have undermined the feeling of well-being and the feeling that there is a total environment and that people are part of a community that is respected and supported by the Government.
The project in my constituency, like others throughout the country, improves the quality of life—in this case in the five streets involved. It inspired confidence in an area which has suffered increased pressure from crime and the fear of crime. It involved a comparatively small capital cost and minimal extra running costs. It made burglary, mugging and rape more difficult by increasing the chances of recognising the offender.
The research concluded that the change that improved lighting represents makes a positive difference. However, it also stressed the need for a wider local strategy if changes are to have a lasting effect on reducing crime and building confidence in the community.
I have referred to the positive influence on accidents, but that is beyond the scope of today's debate.
The Government do not seem to have understood that alarms, locks, recognising that there is a problem, and putting lights in streets will not deal with the whole job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South was right to say that the Government need to recognise the value of the type of improvement that we are talking about, to tackle the root causes of crime and to recognise that their failures in recent years have undermined local efforts.
Street lighting will help, but it will only make a lasting impact if it is part of a local strategy for crime reduction, of the sort that the Government have signally failed to support. Robbery in England and Wales increased by 24 per cent. between June 1991 and June this year, and by 41 per cent. in the South Wales police area—the rates are also high in other areas—while police numbers have once again been frozen. So, goodness knows, the fight against crime needs some help.
Chief Inspector Gordon Shumack of the South Wales police, talking about the Tremorfa project said:
The fear of crime is often greater than the fear of victimisation. It is important that both the police and the community make every effort to reduce this fear.
He reflected the theme that my hon. Friend developed and went on:
The Police alone cannot hope to solve all the problems inherent in the community particularly escalating crime reported to them. Any measures which can assist the reduction of crime and its fear and therefore dispel the anxieties of those who are seen as particularly vulnerable such as the elderly, the infirm, or women walking alone can only be applauded.
It is significant that the project was sponsored jointly by South Glamorgan county council and Urbis Lighting Limited and that it received positive backing from the South Wales police and the parliamentary group.
As in projects elsewhere in the country, councillors, Members of Parliament, the industry and the police

recognise the importance of the work, but where are the Government? Where is the Conservative party? Even with the improved lighting, they are nowhere to be seen.
Members give positive support to the all-party group, but it needs Government support and ministerial leadership to encourage effective initiatives. Look at the background of cuts, to which my hon. Friends referred, which makes the situation much worse. The tightening of the screws on local government makes it difficult to expand the scheme in my constituency or other worthwhile projects around the United Kingdom, which have had equal success.
At a time when the Government should be providing resources to allow the success of such projects to be replicated in many more streets throughout the country, Ministers are making it impossible to maintain what has been achieved so far. Reference has been made to the lighting of footpaths in dark corners. Yes, we should like them to be lit up, but is not the Minister aware that cuts in the finances available to local government threaten both the revenue and capital cash necessary to extend safety and confidence to our citizens?
Councils throughout the country have to consider unacceptable ways in which to save money to cope with the restrictions heaped on them by a Government who have failed to run the economy effectively, and, having run out of ideas, have reverted to Thatcherite dogma by cutting local government expenditure yet again.
To get within the financial cap threatened by the Government, councils are having to consider such steps as turning off the lights an hour earlier, or turning out every alternate light in many streets. We have been brought to that, rather than to the development of lighting projects that we need. Local authorities are having to consider those serious options, as they have been given little room for manoeuvre by a Government who do not understand the way in which the price for their short-sighted policies will be paid by ordinary citizens throughout the land.
The debate touches on only one aspect of the crisis. The closure of youth clubs, consequent on this year's revenue support settlement, has serious implications for crime, as well as for the health of the community generally. Unemployment, the cuts in training referred to by my colleagues, and the impact of so many other Government policies also play their part in defeating the police, councils and local communities in their fight against crime.
One has to consider all those problems against the background of inadequate finances for community care and the many other ways in which the Government are neglecting the physical and social infrastructure of local communities.
The debate will have been worth while if the Minister gives us something positive to take away from it and I challenge him to do so.
First, successful projects, such as the one that I described, should be one shot in our armoury in the fight against crime. What extra resources will the Government provide, now that both the need and the effectiveness of that approach have been recognised?
Secondly, will the Minister acknowledge that one cannot govern by projects alone? Once a pilot project has demonstrated the value of an approach, the Government must develop that idea into a national strategy, giving the resources to local authorities which know their area best and are therefore best able to target resources into areas of greatest need. Will the Minister accept the research's


conclusion that improved street lighting must be part of a general approach to crime where it occurs in the community?
Thirdly, will the Government enable a strategic approach to be adopted by the police and local councillors to crime reduction in their area? I challenge the Minister to set targets for reducing crime rather than echoing the Home Secretary's pathetic attempt to say that he is satisfied if the rise in crime is ever so slightly less than the astronomical increases of previous years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has highlighted an important element in the necessary strategy to create safer and healthier communities throughout the land. I appeal to the Minister to give firm and clear commitments on what the Government will do to help, with dates and cash figures, and to set those commitments in the context of a significant national strategy to fight crime—something for which our communities yearn.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): Those were firm words from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and I hope that I shall be able to deal with his comments as well as with the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), whom I congratulate on obtaining this debate. Since 1987, no hon. Member has raised this subject for debate, so she is unique in recent parliamentary history.
The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) also contributed to the debate, painting their own perspectives of this important subject. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) sitting on the Bench alongside me because he, too, has taken an interest in this subject and corresponded with me many times—[HON. MEMBERS: "But he is a Whip."] The fact that he holds that position does not prohibit him from raising the subject vociferously on behalf of his constituents.
The principal point underlying many of the contributions to the debate was the relationship between lighting and the fear of crime. I am slightly disappointed—I am being generous to hon. Members in putting it that way—that no hon. Member has read or referred to the excellent crime prevention unit paper No. 29 written by the Home Office, entitled, "The Effect of Better Street Lighting on Crime and Fear: a Review". Had the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth spent less time huffing and puffing at me across the Dispatch Box and more time reading that report, he would have found that all the points that he raised regarding a strategic approach to crime prevention, with lighting as a key element, were not only well documented and researched but acknowledged. May I say in reply to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points that that study has taken a part in continuing Government policy on crime prevention.
At the heart of the question of lighting and crime lies the standard to which local authorities adhere. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have noticed that there is a British standard to which all local authorities are supposed to comply. Referring to the code of practice, the Home Office paper states:
The first point made is that, in areas with a 'high crime risk', it is important to ensure that 'any potentially dark areas, which may provide cover for a criminal, are lighted.'

Referring to a second aim, the paper states:
To provide a sense of security it should be possible to recognise, in time to make an appropriate response, whether another person is likely to be friendly, indifferent or aggressive.
Thus the code of practice sets standards for lighting.
It is interesting to see whether local authorities have spent their money on fulfilling those objectives. We find that for those figures that are known—for example, when total local authority expenditure on lighting in the financial year 1989–90 is compared with expenditure in 1990–91—expenditure has risen from £198·1 million to £256·7 million, an increase of 29·6 per cent.
No one can say that resources have not been available. However, when I examined the figures for Stockport, I found that it had spent only 14·3 per cent. of its highway maintenance budget on lighting. That compares with 15·9 per cent. in Manchester, 18·1 per cent. in Bolton and 17·8 per cent. in Salford. There is a little room for improvement in Stockport. Contrary to the views expressed by Opposition Members, resources are available.
I want to pick up on issues raised about the Government's attitude to the subject. The matter cannot be better illustrated than by our commitment to street lighting as part of our integrated approach to crime prevention in the context of our safer cities project. The excellent Home Office publication on the subject—which I hope will be part of hon. Members' Christmas reading—details the projects in which we have been involved.
Since 1988, £1·75 million has been spent on more than 350 individual lighting schemes in the context of safer cities. In the north-west, there is the Fielding Court scheme in Birkenhead, which sought to improve lighting around many access points on an isolated council estate. The hon. Member for Stockport stressed the problem of isolation, the fear of darkness and what can happen on an estate. That scheme cost £20,000. At the time, the area housing office was receiving two or three complaints a week—predominantly about youths causing annoyance and damage. The number of complaints has significantly fallen since the lights have been installed. There are similar schemes in Bristol, Nottingham and Rochdale.
When we consider the scope of the sort of institutions that have benefited from the safer cities expenditure, we find everything from churches and mosques to women's centres, leisure centres, scout huts and garages—a broad cross-section. Time prevents me from going into more detail, but my brief comments show that we are committed to such schemes.
The Home Office document states:
Lighting has generally been introduced either as part of a package of measures, as in the Sunderland multi-storey car parks, or to allay the fears of vulnerable residents on housing estates (Bradford, Wirral, Sunderland, etc). It is undeniably a popular measure with those isolated and fearful of crime, enabling them to see who is at the door at night".
That tangibly demonstrates the fact that we accept the contribution of lighting schemes to those projects that are designed to reduce crime and we have put our money where our mouth is. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will know—

Mr. Bennett: Not much money.

Mr. Jack: I am coming to that.
We are committed to expanding the number of safer cities schemes, which will be given the opportunity to take their place in the fight against crime.
The hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the use of city centres and the fear of going out at night. She was absolutely right to concentrate on that aspect. Clearly, as better lighting makes people feel safer—which Home Office research shows to be the case—more people use urban areas, their economic well-being improves and businesses are able to take individual crime prevention measures. Lighting acts as a catalyst to improve the security of such districts.
The Home Office research paper covers that important point, which relates to Hull. It also highlights the importance of lighting in making things light: closed circuit television and anti-crime schemes work because, put simply, better illumination enables one to see what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned the secure car parks initiative which, in Bradford, with better lighting and closed circuit television, has already reduced car crime by 53 per cent. The safer cities programme helped to finance that initiative in partnership with the local authority. It is no good the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointing his finger at me and saying that the problem is down to the Government. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish chastised us for not having confidence. Local authorities have shown that they can accept responsibility because they, too, have worked in partnership with safer cities projects in Bradford and many other places in an enlightened campaign of crime prevention, combining street lighting with other policies.
Behind every one of the crime statistics that we have discussed is a victim. If lighting helps to reduce the fear of crime on the part of potential victims and to prevent crime itself, we must recognise that. The hon. Lady must recognise, too, that the partnership approach to crime prevention which Greater Manchester police have brought to her area through schemes such as estate action, which has played a part in many areas of her constituency—

It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

Pollution, Immingham

9 am

Mr. Michael Brown: I wish to present a petition from Mr. Victor Smith and Mr. Morris Evans, residents of the town of Immingham in the borough of Cleethorpes. The petition is signed by 2,516 of my constituents and it relates to the pollution in the area around the town.
The prayer of the petitioners reads as follows:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House gives all district and borough councils greater powers to control the companies responsible for causing pollution, that it revises the General Development Order under which these companies operate in order that more control can be exercised over their activities by the local authority and that it revises the Environmental Protection Act to further strengthen the powers of the Health Authority over such matters.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Naval Employment (South Dorset)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful that the Minister and I can come fresh to this important debate after a long all-night sitting. I am pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), who, I understand, will also try to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We often read lurid headlines about the numbers of people who are about to lose their jobs or be transferred away from Dorset if the decisions pending or already taken by the Ministry of Defence are implemented. I should like to outline the figures as I see them and ask the Minister to give his estimates of those figures when he replies.
If operational sea training moves away from the naval base, I understand that 475 civilians will be affected, most of whom would lose their jobs. Four hundred and twenty service personnel would transfer away and 130 service posts would be lost altogether. That makes a total of 1,025.
The sea systems controllerate is a moving target. When it was thinking of moving away from Portland, it employed about 600 civilians and 100 service personnel, making a total of 700. The Defence Research Agency is planning to shrink its operations by 297 people, and another 70 would initially be transferred to the sea systems controllerate. Those jobs would be lost as well—367 of them. Five hundred and ninety people would either transfer to Bincleaves—still at Portland—or away to Winfrith. In south Dorset, 188 people at Holton Heath, at the Defence Research Agency site, would be transferred out of the constituency. That makes a grand total of 2,280 jobs lost from my constituency, and 2,600 jobs that would move away from Portland.
Even more important than the lurid-sounding headline figures are the total knock-on effects. The figures that I have listed do not include the many people who are part of the contractorised operations. They do not include all the people employed by other suppliers to the Navy who work almost permanently on the base, or those located in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West who are employed by defence manufacturers. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of the excellent report by Portsmouth university which suggests that the direct and knock-on employment in the Weymouth and Portland travel-to-work areas accounts for 43 per cent. of all employment—so such redundancies must be taken into account by the Government.
I am pleased that when I met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last evening, he was able to tell me that the Government are willing to fund part of a study into the consequences for Portland naval base if people moved away and to put some seedcorn money into the possibility of establishing some sort of enterprise agency. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell me more about the initiative that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned last evening.
The sea systems controllerate is part of the procurement executive and is used by the Navy to liaise with all the different arms that need to be consulted when any form of equipment is installed for use by the Navy. It was relocated

in south Dorset from Bath because it is sensible that an organisation involved in such liaison work should be located by the sea, so that it can work with the Navy, be close to the Portland research facilities and enjoy the excellent living conditions available at Portland.
It was therefore something of a shock to find that the sea systems controllerate has for five or six years been part of one study or another in relation to moving those jobs away. At various times, it was suggested that the controllerate should move to Bath, but that was knocked on the head by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and found, when he examined the case, that it did not stack up in terms of value for money. At that time, a 13-year payback period was being considered.
The project seemed to die a death for a while, until the powers-that-be decided that it might be a good idea to link that project with the relocation of the land and air systems from London to a cheaper area—ignoring the fact that it would involve moving personnel from the Portland area to Bath, Bristol or Keynsham—all of which are more expensive.
For a long time, we had difficulty getting from the MOD any figures on the costs and the number of personnel involved. Eventually, I was given some figures in confidence, which I shall not divulge now—but the figure in general circulation is that the co-location exercise involving the relocation of the procurement executive to its new site north of Bristol will cost £300 million for 5,000 civil servants. Not all of them will be relocated, because many in London and Portland will lose their jobs and be re-recruited back to the north of Bristol. The figure is equivalent to £60,000 per desk, so that will clearly be an expensive operation for the MOD's budget in these stringent times.
I am reliably informed that that whole exercise is being looked at again. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can say whether there is any truth in that, and what he intends to do to ensure value for money. He may wish to refer to column 695 of Hansard for 2 June 1992, when he reassured me—perhaps unwisely—that the MOD would not go around buying new green-field sites for operations such as this. Perhaps he now wishes to eat his words: unfortunately, someone else in the MOD without his good sense promptly went off and bought one. That is a strange decision when the MOD is trying to sell a number of such sites.
There appears to be problems with the Defence Research Agency, which currently has a number of sites in my constituency. The largest "co-locates" at Southwell—a wonderful word; the MOD thinks that it is a good idea when it is happening in someone else's constituency, but apparently not when it is happening in mine—with the sea systems controllerate. The agency has been left with the thought that in three or four years' time the controllerate will move to a new site, leaving it like a pea rattling around in a very large pod and with the thought that it will cost a great deal to maintain the site. It needs 12,000 sq ft. and finds that 30,000 sq ft are available to it in Southwell.
The DRA now intends to spend £13 million of taxpayers' money co-locating on another site, which is likely to be at Winfrith. That, too, is in my constituency. I thank the agency for at least trying to co-locate within the same travel-to-work area; but the fact remains that a large amount of Government money is being spent on cutting employment. I wondered whether the right way of


tackling the matter would be to tell the Minister how delighted I was that we were to receive £13 million of Government money, £9 million of which would save £1 million a year, and to congratulate him on wasting so much money on my constituency. That, I thought, might make him think even harder about whether the move would provide value for money from the MOD's point of view.
The subject that has produced the biggest headlines is that of the naval base, because the question whether to close a naval base is more easily understood by the public. I well understand how the proposal has come about. Currently we have five naval bases—four of which have operational ships—and Portland naval base, which exists specifically to carry out operational sea training away from the other operational bases.
The Navy board is clearly under considerable pressure from the MOD and the Treasury to show real savings in the MOD budget. It therefore seems a good accountant's trick to say, "Minister, I am willing to cut 20 per cent. of your naval bases and save you some money. Aren't we doing well?" We must ask, however, why the Portland naval base—which, over the decades, has probably featured in dozens of studies about the possibility of closure—is constantly being found, after intensive scrutiny, to be the most cost-effective sea training centre.
It is interesting to note that, under the Navy's new costing system, Portland is much the most cost-effective place in the country in which to have a ship repaired—although it is the smallest base and would not be expected to operate economies of scale. But why is operational sea training done there?
I believe that what we are about to lose is Portland's greatest strength—the co-location of the helicopter station for Lynx helicopters with the operational sea training function. Even if there were no good financial case for retaining the Portland naval base, I believe that it would still be in the MOD's interest to keep the helicopters and the sea training exercise together.
The helicopter station was brought down to Portland because it was deemed essential, if one was to get a helicopter crew and all the necessary staff properly integrated with a frigate or a destroyer, to have the helicopter station next to the place where the ships were working up.
The partnership between the Navy and the helicopters has gone from strength to strength, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will see from the record of the Navy in action in recent times that, at least in respect of the non-aircraft carriers—the destroyers and so on—the helicopters are not only the eyes and ears of the Navy but its teeth. It is not the 4·5-in gun on the front of a ship or its self-defence missiles that are the real weapons system but the helicopter that goes out and attacks other ships. That is what makes the Navy the potent force that it is. Any attempt to split the helicopter activity from the naval training side simply would not work; it would be a false economy.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House about one aspect of the detailed costing figures that we have been given? How is it that, whereas we shall need even more service personnel and even more spending on fuel and on helicopters, the civilian labour force of some 475

people is almost magically to be absorbed into the current staffing levels at Devonport, with fewer than 100 additional posts being created? Either there are 400 spare bodies down at Devonport who are just waiting for the work to arrive in two or three years' time or the figures are wrong. I hope that, having been asked that question on a number of occasions in the past few weeks, my right hon. Friend will have a good answer for us.
I am conscious of the time and I know that my hon. Friend for Dorset, West would like to comment. Moreover, we should like a response from my right hon. Friend the Minister. Without further ado, therefore, may I ask my right hon. Friend most earnestly to reconsider all the facts and figures surrounding the three possible moves for Dorset; to check the MOD's case, which in itself is too weak to convince us that we should go ahead with the moves; and to look at the knock-on effects for the whole south Dorset economy? I know that other Secretaries of State would be extremely concerned if they saw the figures, which no doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister will give us later, in respect of the knock-on effect on their budgets in the coming years.

Sir Jim Spicer: I am conscious of the time, and I shall therefore come straight to the point. The lead has rightly been taken in this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who has performed a doughty task in supporting his constituents.
The words "peace dividend" have a very unhappy ring to them in south-west Dorset. As far as we are concerned, it has all turned sour. Three years ago, none of us ever envisaged that the effect of the peace dividend would be felt so starkly in our area.
It is not in my nature to prepare a fall-back position. My nature has always been to go forward and win. On this occasion, however, I shall deal only with the fall-back position. I hope that the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset will be taken on board clearly by the MOD. In terms of employment, the effect of the changes on south and west Dorset is quite shattering. I am not yet sure whether our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have taken that point on board. That is why I direct my plea to that point.
There is no area in the country where house prices have been higher than in south and west Dorset. Therefore, because of the very nature of the fall of house prices, people will not be able to move if all the changes take place. They will be locked in there and be unable to move. The effect in our area will be disastrous.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about assisted area status. I beg him to write again and to get my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to write as well. If we do not have assisted area status, we will have an area of desolation, unseen in the south of England in the past 50 years. I beg my right hon. Friend also to do all in his power to ensure that all Ministers are aware of the situation.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) that of course I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to his demands for assisted area status.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) produced the figure of 2,280. My figure for civilian job losses in the area is about 1,400. My hon. Friend is adding in all the service jobs on top of that figure. Clearly, that will have an impact on the economy in Portland—there is no doubt about that whatsoever—but it is unfair to suggest that that will add to the unemployment totals in his area, as most of those jobs will be moved away. However, I must take his point about the effect of the service jobs on the local economy in terms of spending power. Also, there are my hon. Friend's points about contractors in the area who would be affected as well, and they do not show up in our figures.
I cannot give my hon. Friend figures relating to the overall financial impact on the area about which he is talking, but I shall certainly see whether we can work up a figure for him. Of course, the figures are somewhat speculative, but we will see whether we can do something.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset because he has worked tirelessly to represent the interests of his constituents who may be affected by the extensive restructuring of defence facilities in his constituency. The end of the cold war, which the whole House and, indeed, the whole country welcome, means that we can reduce the share of our national resources devoted to defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West made a point about the peace dividend not being altogether welcome in his part of the world. I am afraid that the peace dividend means that the Government have resources to spend on other things, but, at the same time, it inevitably means that we start cutting defence facilities. That affects to a deleterious degree the south, south-west and south-east of England, because, by an accident of history, that is where most of our defence facilities are located. The Royal Navy is reducing in size, but we intend to ensure that it is equipped and manned to meet the tasks that it will face.
Reductions in the front line must be matched by savings in support provision if we are to achieve value for money from what is still a great deal of taxpayers' money. If we fail to achieve that, we will face the prospect of further reductions in the front line to pay for the cost of maintaining excess support facilities. That is not an acceptable alternative. I acknowledge that the period of transition will be painful for a number of communities, including Portland, whose economies have relied heavily on defence-related expenditure.
We must face hard decisions if we are to achieve value for money, but those decisions must be based on a wide range of factors, not just the savings offered. That is why we announce proposals as the basis for consultation before final decisions are taken. My hon. Friend is right to probe our proposals in depth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that the process of consultation is as open as possible, subject only to issues of security or commercial confidentiality. That

may sometimes be uncomfortable for Ministers and their officials, but if there are flaws in the proposal they must be identified.
The proposal to close Portland naval base and transfer operational sea training to Devonport in 1996, announced on 12 November, is at present the subject of such consultation. We have opened a dialogue with my hon. Friend—he will acknowledge that I have had a number of meetings with him—the trade unions and the local authorities. Many detailed questions have been raised already and no doubt there will be more. We shall do our best to answer them fully and promptly.
The purpose of operational sea training is to bring ships to a high state of operational readiness, ready to cope with any eventuality. The crew must learn to operate together as a team, making the best use of all the ship's sensors, systems and weapons. Ships need to work up in that way whenever they come back into service after a refit, with new equipment and new crew members.
In addition to the training of ships returning to service after refit, there is also the role fulfilled by flag officer sea training in providing continuation training for ships in commission. That is used to ensure that ships and their crews are maintaining adequate standards of readiness. The transfer of operational sea training to Devonport would provide useful opportunities for the ships based there to work with ships under training, thus enhancing the opportunities for this important continuation training.
By the end of the training, ships' crews will be trained to meet, as individual units or as members of a task group, the full range of submarine, surface and air threats. A team of instructors moves between ships, monitoring standards to ensure that the crews of every Royal Navy warship and Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessel are fit for their task. The value of such training has been amply demonstrated in the Falklands campaign and in the Gulf.
Operational sea training at Portland began in 1958, when the flag officer sea training was moved there for five years, although no money was then available for capital expenditure. In 1961, the dockyard closed and the Portland harbour area was designated as a naval base. In 1963, at the end of the initial five-year period, it was decided that operational sea training should continue to be based at Portland, where it has remained since.
As my hon. Friend said, no warships are base-ported at Portland on a long-term basis—they remain at the naval base only when undergoing training. The naval base provides only the infrastructure and personnel needed to provide day-to-day support and minor repairs and maintenance. It does not offer the range of facilities available at Devonport, Faslane, Portsmouth or Rosyth.
It is true, as I have said on many occasions to my hon. Friend, that Portland provides an extremely good centre for operational sea training. However, we are convinced that the move to Devonport will result in significant savings and certain gains in sea training. Any lack of facilities that we may suffer at Devonport would not be enough to make any difference to the savings that we reckon on making.
No doubt those supporting the Portland case will continue to draw attention to the perceived disadvantages of transferring operational sea training to Devonport. Whatever new information may emerge during the period of consultation will be considered before a firm decision is taken. We will take on board the points that my hon. Friend has raised this morning.
I am pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend the message given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, following my hon. Friend's representations, we have agreed to extend the consultation period until the end of January. That decision recognises the fact that the consultation period that we have envisaged covered the Christmas period. One must accept that, over Christmas, things quieten down and there is a fortnight of lost time. Our decision to extend the consultation from the middle of January to the end of it takes that factor into account.
My hon. Friend mentioned the undertaking given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the consultants' report would be jointly funded by the Ministry. We expect contributions to be made by local councils, the Crown Estate, which owns much of the real estate, and the Ministry of Defence. We thought that the solution might be to use the working party that is considering the future of the area to draw up the terms of

reference for a consultancy firm. I do not like to anticipate a bad decision for Portland, but, in the circumstances, it might be sensible to work out the terms of reference of the report now so that if the decision went against Portland we could get the consultants working quickly thereafter on the future of the area.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate and bringing this important matter before the House. I am aware of its enormous importance. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to have to take these very hard decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said, although we look forward to spending the peace dividend on other areas of public expenditure, it means that we have to take these hard decisions. Areas that have relied on defence expenditure in the past, such as Portland, suffer from the cuts and closures that we envisaged in the proposals that were put to my hon. Friend in the middle of last month.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Ten o'clock.